| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-02-22 19:52:20 |
| Message-ID: | 42CACB0F-7311-42B7-BF34-0FD5E3B42ACF@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On February 22, 2018 11:44:17 AM PST, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
>wrote:
>In this particular case that would at least phase 1 simplify it because
>we'd only need one process instead of worker/launcher. However, if we'd
>ever want to parallellize it -- or any other process of the style, like
>autovacuum -- you'd still need a launcher+worker combo. So making that
>particular scenario simpler might be worthwhile on it's own.
Why is that needed? You can just start two bgworkers and process a list of items stored in shared memory. Or even just check, I assume there'd be a catalog flag somewhere, whether a database / table / object of granularity has already been processed and use locking to prevent concurrent access.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-22 20:00:23 | Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-22 19:52:04 | Re: ERROR: left and right pathkeys do not match in mergejoin |