| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum PGPROCs in ProcGlobal? (was Re: autovacuum multiworkers) |
| Date: | 2007-04-12 15:49:57 |
| Message-ID: | 22586.1176392997@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> It seems like I'll have to decouple autovacuum PGPROC's from
> autovacuum's own shared memory. The most sensible way to do this seems
> to be to store them in ProcGlobal, along with the regular backend's
> PGPROCs. Is everyone OK with this plan?
> Note that this will mean that those PGPROCs will be protected by the
> same spinlock that protects the other PGPROCs. I can't think of any
> reason why this would be a problem, but if you think otherwise please
> speak up.
I thought the separate pool of PGPROCs was a bit weird. If you're going
back to a common pool, I'm all for it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-04-12 16:05:40 | Re: Benchmarking tools for the Postgres, EDB and Oracle Database |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-04-12 15:45:23 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: RESET SESSION, plus related new DDL commands. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-04-12 16:56:04 | Re: Slow Postgresql server |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-12 15:42:20 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem |