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

Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
Date: 2010-08-26 11:02:30
Message-ID: AANLkTikC=T0d9EVwC2ZRK7s=G67K85uNXQG9VNJ=yohy@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
>> Markus, do you need B? Or A + standard backend processes are enough?
>
> No, I certainly don't need B.

OK, I see why you proposed coordinator hook (yeah, I call it hook :)
rather than adding user-defined processes.

> Why not just use an ordinary backend to do "user defined background
> processing"? It covers all of the API stability and the security issues I've
> raised.

However, we have autovacuum worker processes in addition to normal backend
processes. Does it show a fact that there are some jobs we cannot run in
normal backends?

 For example, normal backends cannot do anything in idle time, so a
time-based polling job is difficult in backends. It might be ok to
fork processes for each interval when the polling interval is long,
but it is not effective for short interval cases.  I'd like to use
such kind of process as an additional stats collector.

-- 
Itagaki Takahiro

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Markus WannerDate: 2010-08-26 11:23:07
Subject: Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
Previous:From: Markus WannerDate: 2010-08-26 10:42:11
Subject: Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process

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