Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres
Date: 2009-08-31 16:34:09
Message-ID: 4129.1251736449@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder if it would be cleaner to include the launcher in
>> the autovacuum_max_workers parameter, and increase the min/default
>> values of that by one.

> Huh, yeah, sorry about that -- fixed here.  I think the name of the
> param, which includes "worker", precludes from raising the values.

Well, I'm not sure the average user knows or cares about the difference
between the launcher and the workers.  The thing that was in the back of
my mind was that we would now have the option to have the launcher show
up in pg_stat_activity.  If we were to do that then the case for
counting it in the user-visible number-of-processes parameter would get
a lot stronger (enough to justify renaming the parameter, if you insist
that the launcher isn't a worker).  I don't however have any strong
opinion on whether we *should* include it in pg_stat_activity ---
comments?

In the meantime, this looks reasonably sane in a fast read-through,
but I saw a few comments that could use improvement, and I have not
tried to actually review it (like look for missed places to change).
Do you mind if I work it over for an hour or two?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-08-31 16:57:16
Subject: Re: Add YAML option to explain
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-08-31 16:18:55
Subject: Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group