| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements |
| Date: | 2010-09-21 18:30:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4C98F9C8.8020105@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/21/2010 05:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Oh, wow. Is there another limit on the total number of bgworkers?
There currently are three GUCs that control bgworkers:
max_background_workers
min_spare_background_workers
max_spare_background_workers
The first replaces the former autovacuum_max_workers GUC. As before, it
is an overall limit, much like max_connections.
The later two are additional. They are per-database lower and upper
limits for the amount of idle workers an any point in time. These later
two are what I'm referring to as the min/max approach. And what I'm
arguing cannot be replaced by a timeout without loosing functionality.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-09-21 18:30:36 | Re: Git conversion status |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-21 18:29:59 | Re: .gitignore files, take two |