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

  1. Use a WaitLatch for vacuum/autovacuum sleeping