| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rémi Zara <remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com>, CM Team <cm(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Date: | 2017-04-27 00:58:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYz1uLAbpQdE8fc+1QQuQCSt_iu9j1ZSf9+xUQQOoa9kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> 3. Go ahead with converting the postmaster to use WaitEventSet, a la
>> the draft patch I posted earlier. I'd be happy to do this if we were
>> at the start of a devel cycle, but right now seems a bit late --- not
>> to mention that we really need to fix 9.6 as well.
>
> Yea, backpatching this to 9.6 seems like a bigger hammer than
> appropriate. I'm on the fence WRT master, I think there's an argument
> to be made that this is going to become a bigger and bigger problem, and
> that we'll wish in a year or two that we had fewer releases with
> parallelism etc that don't use WaitEventSets.
I think changing this might be wise. This problem isn't going away
for real until we do this, right?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-27 01:07:20 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Previous Message | Huong Dangminh | 2017-04-27 00:54:19 | Re: [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"? |