minor fix related to Auxiliary processes and IO workers
Hello Andres,
I noticed a comment in "include/miscadmin.h" which might be need a fix:
it states that there is a single auxiliary process of each kind running
at once.
However, with IO workers it's not true anymore I believe.
See minor patch attached.
---
Cédric Villemain +33 6 20 30 22 52
https://www.Data-Bene.io
PostgreSQL Support, Expertise, Training, R&D
Attachments:
0001-Fix-comment-on-auxiliary-processes-for-IO-workers.patchtext/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name=0001-Fix-comment-on-auxiliary-processes-for-IO-workers.patchDownload+1-2
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 06:25:24PM +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ typedef enum BackendType * Auxiliary processes. These have PGPROC entries, but they are not * attached to any particular database, and cannot run transactions or * even take heavyweight locks. There can be only one of each of these - * running at a time. + * running at a time, except for IO worker.
Right. Perhaps this should say "IO workers", no?
--
Michael
On 07/05/2025 01:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 06:25:24PM +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ typedef enum BackendType * Auxiliary processes. These have PGPROC entries, but they are not * attached to any particular database, and cannot run transactions or * even take heavyweight locks. There can be only one of each of these - * running at a time. + * running at a time, except for IO worker.Right. Perhaps this should say "IO workers", no?
Sure, modified this way.
---
Cédric Villemain +33 6 20 30 22 52
https://www.Data-Bene.io
PostgreSQL Support, Expertise, Training, R&D
Attachments:
0001-Fix-comment-on-auxiliary-processes-for-IO-workers.patchtext/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name=0001-Fix-comment-on-auxiliary-processes-for-IO-workers.patchDownload+1-2
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 03:25:07AM +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Sure, modified this way.
I have detected two more of these under NumProcSignalSlots and
NumProcStateSlots. NUM_AUXILIARY_PROCS is adjusted in both cases with
MAX_IO_WORKERS, which is OK, but their comments were incorrect.
Adjusted these two as well, applied the result.
--
Michael
On 07/05/2025 07:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 03:25:07AM +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Sure, modified this way.
I have detected two more of these under NumProcSignalSlots and
NumProcStateSlots. NUM_AUXILIARY_PROCS is adjusted in both cases with
MAX_IO_WORKERS, which is OK, but their comments were incorrect.Adjusted these two as well, applied the result.
Thank you for the other edits.
---
Cédric Villemain +33 6 20 30 22 52
https://www.Data-Bene.io
PostgreSQL Support, Expertise, Training, R&D