| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_avd |
| Date: | 2003-02-18 23:03:07 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0302182035010.1644-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Matthew T. O'Connor writes:
> I think it's a question of, is this solution one that we want to keep
> for a while, or do we want a different implementation of AVD, perhaps
> something built into the backend that could take advantage of the FSM
> also.
To me it seems that this would be much better if kept inside the server.
We already have machinery for launching periodic processes that do stuff
in the data files (the checkpoint process).
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2003-02-19 02:43:10 | The last configuration file patch (I hope!) This one does it all. |
| Previous Message | Dima Tkach | 2003-02-18 22:58:06 | Re: postgres error reporting |