| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |
| Date: | 2010-09-14 17:46:17 |
| Message-ID: | 9038.1284486377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I think we've had enough problems with the current design of forking a
> new autovac process every once in a while, that I'd like to have them as
> permanent processes instead, waiting for orders from the autovac
> launcher. From that POV, bgworkers would make sense.
That seems like a fairly large can of worms to open: we have never tried
to make backends switch from one database to another, and I don't think
I'd want to start such a project with autovac.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-09-14 17:48:50 | Sync Replication with transaction-controlled durability |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-09-14 17:32:11 | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |