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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
Date: 2010-09-14 17:32:11
Message-ID: 1284485030-sup-1335@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from Markus Wanner's message of mar sep 14 12:56:59 -0400 2010:

> What bugs me a bit is that I didn't really get much feedback regarding
> the *bgworker* portion of code. Especially as that's the part I'm most
> interested in feedback.

I think we've had enough problems with the current design of forking a
new autovac process every once in a while, that I'd like to have them as
permanent processes instead, waiting for orders from the autovac
launcher. From that POV, bgworkers would make sense.

I cannot promise a timely review however :-(

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-09-14 17:46:17 Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-09-14 17:28:08 Re: Report: removing the inconsistencies in our CVS->git conversion