| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CLOG extension |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 21:04:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAAZKuFaiKcpde134+rY1+_035Z_f-Lfnd-S8=kQvNNV7jKqwdA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Possibly. I have some fear of ending up with too many background
> processes, but we may need them.
I sort of care about this, but only on systems that are not very busy
and could otherwise get by with fewer resources -- for example, it'd
be nice to turn off autovacuum and the stat collector if it really
doesn't have to be around. Perhaps a Nap Commander[0] process or
procedure (if baked into postmaster, to optimize to one process from
two) would do the trick?
This may be related to some of the nascent work mentioned recently on
allowing for backend daemons, primarily for event scheduling.
Said Nap Commander could also possibly help with wakeups.
[0]: Credit to Will Leinweber for the memorable name.
--
fdr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 21:08:41 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-03 21:01:22 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |