Re: Logical Replication WIP

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logical Replication WIP
Date: 2016-08-09 10:16:14
Message-ID: CAMsr+YE09BCHCibU0GLR4eT1CXmUKWxpUmOvZmodhw8L5mU4UQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9 August 2016 at 17:28, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> > Sure, you can go deeper down the rabbit hole here and say that we need to
> > add bgworker "categories" with reserved pools of worker slots for each
> > category. But do we really need that?
>
> If we change these processes to bgworker, we can categorize them into
> two, auxiliary process(check pointer and wal sender etc) and other
> worker process.
> And max_worker_processes controls the latter.

Right. I think that's probably the direction we should be going eventually.
Personally I don't think such a change should block the logical replication
work from proceeding with bgworkers, though. It's been delayed a long time,
a lot of people want it, and I think we need to focus on meeting the core
requirements not getting too sidetracked on minor points.

Of course, everyone's idea of what's core and what's a minor sidetrack
differs ;)

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2016-08-09 10:42:33 Re: Logical Replication WIP
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-08-09 09:28:05 Re: Logical Replication WIP