Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-03-24T03:25:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: >> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit >> message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in >> the next few days and back-patch it. When it comes to 12 and older, >> does anyone want to opine about the wait event to use? I was thinking >> PG_WAIT_TIMEOUT or WAIT_EVENT_PG_SLEEP ... > > I'm not sure if we should back-patch this, but I think if you do you > should just add a wait event, rather than using a generic one. I would not back-patch that either, as this is an improvement of the current state. I agree that this had better introduce a new wait event. Even if this stuff gets backpatched, you won't introduce an ABI incompatibility with a new event as long as you add the new event at the end of the existing enum lists, but let's keep the wait events ordered on HEAD. -- Michael
Commits
-
Use a WaitLatch for vacuum/autovacuum sleeping
- 4753ef37e0ed 14.0 landed