| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| 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 17:55:40 |
| Message-ID: | 9243.1284486940@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> On 09/14/2010 07:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
So there is a minimum of one avworker per database? That's a guaranteed
nonstarter. There are many people with thousands of databases, but no
need for thousands of avworkers.
I'm also pretty unclear why you speak of min and max numbers of workers
when the proposal (AIUI) is to have the workers there always, rather
than have them come and go.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-09-14 17:56:29 | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-09-14 17:50:31 | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |