| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core) |
| Date: | 2010-02-23 05:02:12 |
| Message-ID: | 9434.1266901332@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:
> Regarding hooks or events, I think postmaster should be kept simple:
> launch at start, reset at crash recovery, kill at stop. Salt and pepper
> allowed but that's about it -- more complex ingredients are out of the
> question due to added code to postmaster, which we want to be as robust
> as possible and thus not able to cook much of anything else.
This is exactly why I think the whole proposal is a nonstarter. It is
necessarily pushing more complexity into the postmaster, which means
an overall reduction in system reliability. There are some things
I'm willing to accept extra postmaster complexity for, but I say again
that not one single one of the arguments made in this thread are
convincing reasons to take that risk.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-23 05:12:46 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Previous Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-02-23 04:54:13 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |