On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 17:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected)
> > > > would be useful to demo in worker_spi, if you care to submit a patch.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I would love too. Reading the code of worker_spi, we could add one
> > > or three parameters: a naptime, and the schemaname for both bgprocess.
> > > One would be enough or do you prefer all three?
> > I got no problem with three.
> Actually, it occurs to me that it might be useful to demonstrate having
> the number of processes be configurable: so we could use just two
> settings, naptime and number of workers. Have each worker just use a
> hardcoded schema, say "worker_spi_%d" or something like that.
Here you go.
worker_spi.naptime is the naptime between two checks.
worker_spi.total_workers is the number of workers to launch at
postmaster start time. The first one can change with a sighup, the last
one obviously needs a restart.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2013-01-03 11:19:06|
|Subject: Can't setval() a sequence to return the first value|
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2013-01-03 10:54:03|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation