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
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 |