Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:44:12PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I don't think that change is correct. The worker_spi essentially shows
> how to start bg workers with RegisterBackgroundWorker and dynamic bg
> workers with RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker. If
> shared_preload_libraries = worker_spi not specified in there, you will
> miss to start RegisterBackgroundWorkers. Is giving an initidb time
> database name to worker_spi.database work there? If the database for
> bg workers doesn't exist, changing bgw_restart_time from
> BGW_NEVER_RESTART to say 1 will help to see bg workers coming up
> eventually.

Yeah, it does not move the needle by much.  I think that we are
looking at switching this module to use a TAP test in the long term,
instead, where it would be possible to test the scenarios we want to
look at *with* and *without* shared_preload_libraries especially with
the custom wait events for extensions in mind if we add our tests in
this module.

It does not change the fact that Ikeda-san is right about the launch
of dynamic workers with this module being broken, so I have applied v1
with the comment I have suggested.  This will ease a bit the
implementation of any follow-up test scenarios, while avoiding an
incorrect pattern in this template module. 
--
Michael