| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 17:50:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4C8FB5E7.60800@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 09/14/2010 07:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Okay, great.
> 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.
They don't. Even with bgworker, every backend stays connected to the
same backend. You configure the min and max amounts of idle backends
*per database*. Plus the overall max of background workers, IIRC.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-14 17:55:40 | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-09-14 17:48:50 | Sync Replication with transaction-controlled durability |