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

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar sep 14 13:46:17 -0400 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> That seems like a fairly large can of worms to open: we have never tried
> to make backends switch from one database to another, and I don't think
> I'd want to start such a project with autovac.

Yeah, what I was thinking is that each worker would still die after
completing the run, but a new one would be started immediately; it would
go to sleep until a new assignment arrived. (What got me into this was
the whole latch thing, actually.)

This is a very raw idea however, so don't mind me much.

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