Re: autonomous transactions

From: Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions
Date: 2016-09-07 23:18:18
Message-ID: CAMsr+YH6RH5F4q8SBd+Pf_LkaF+N4EbaPLv+HAyhAE82Asmetg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8 Sep. 2016 3:47 am, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>

> Of course, if we could decrease the startup cost of a bgworker

For this use in autonomous tx's we could probably pool workers. Or at least
lazily terminate them so that the loop cases work better by re-using an
existing bgworker.

I'm pretty sure we're going to need a bgworker pool sooner or later anyway.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robins Tharakan 2016-09-07 23:37:31 High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-09-07 23:05:49 Re: Long options for pg_ctl waiting