Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)
Date: 2014-10-24 21:07:58
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaQ7TXBr0T5dB=88p8pMCPseH+DoSfW-3O5_vbaSxzVkQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> The only case I can think of would be actually connecting to a remote
> database; in that case would we even want something as raw as this? I
> suspect not, in which case I don't see an issue. On the other hand, if we
> ever think we might want to do that, we should probably at least stick a
> version number field in there...
>
> But my suspicion is if we ever wanted to do something more with this then
> we'd want some kind of text-based format that could be passed into a SQL
> command (ie: SET ENVIRONMENT TO blah;)

I mean, I don't think this is much different than what we're already
doing to transfer variables from the postmaster to other backends in
EXEC_BACKEND builds; see write_nondefault_variables(). It doesn't
have a version number or anything either. I don't see a reason why
this code needs to be held to a different standard; the purpose is
fundamentally quite similar.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-10-24 21:14:38 Re: Typo fixes for pg_recvlogical documentation
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-10-24 21:03:50 Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)