| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-02-23 02:48:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20180223024816.GD15131@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:24:37AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I suspect I'm going to get some grief for this, but I think the time has
> come to bite the bullet and support changing databases in the same
> process...
I'd like to see that. Last time this has been discussed, and Robert
complained to me immediately when I suggested it, is that this is not
worth it with the many complications around syscache handling and
resource cleanup. It is in the long term more stable to use a model
where a parent process handles a set of children and decides to which
database each child should spawn, which is what autovacuum does.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-23 02:53:39 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-02-23 02:45:11 | Re: Translations contributions urgently needed |