| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |
| Date: | 2012-12-03 15:27:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKvnim2n6tpWDXAD6m+H_OJ4W9iEdBLW8nRR1kNBKNv6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3 December 2012 15:17, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
>>> Just like av_launcher does it now: set a flag in shared memory and
>>> signal the postmaster (PMSIGNAL_START_AUTOVAC_WORKER).
>>
>> I'm not sure how this works. What process is in charge of setting such
>> a flag?
>
> The only process that currently starts background workers ... ehm ...
> autovacuum workers is the autovacuum launcher. It uses the above
> Postmaster Signal in autovacuum.c:do_start_autovacuum_worker() to have
> the postmaster launch bg/autovac workers on demand.
My understanding was that the patch keep autovac workers and
background workers separate at this point.
Is there anything to be gained *now* from merging those two concepts?
I saw that as refactoring that can occur once we are happy it should
take place, but isn't necessary.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-03 15:28:31 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2012-12-03 15:25:21 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |