Tom Lane wrote:
>"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>>In the windows service world, is there any reason pg_autovacuum should
>>ever give up?
>I was a bit worried about the scenario in which J Random Luser tries to
>start the server twice and ends up with two autovacuum daemons attached
>to the same postmaster. I'm not sure if this is possible, probable,
>or dangerous ... but it seems like a point to consider.
It is a good point to consider. Let me be a little more detailed in my
explanation and see if that helps:
* A never give up pg_autovacuum would only be used when run as a windows
* The windows service control manager can still kill pg_autovacuum, so
you shouldn't be able to start more than one that way.
* You have always been able to run multiple pg_autovacuums, it's not
advisable, and it's only bad side effect would be excessive, or more
than expected, vacuum commands.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruno Wolff III||Date: 2005-01-25 16:25:47|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow && pg_group -- UNTESTED|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-01-25 15:56:38|
|Subject: Re: WAL: O_DIRECT and multipage-writer |