| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLOG extension |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 21:26:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1336080282-sup-9116@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of jue may 03 17:04:03 -0400 2012:
> 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?
I'm not sure I see the point in worrying about this at all. I mean, a
process doing nothing does not waste much resources, does it? Other
than keeping a PID that you can't use for other stuff.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-05-03 21:28:17 | Re: CLOG extension |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 21:18:39 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |