From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |
Date: | 2012-11-30 13:31:54 |
Message-ID: | 50B8B54A.70509@bluegap.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/30/2012 01:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2012-11-30 09:57:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> One of the uses for bgworkers that don't have shmem connection is to
>> have them use libpq connections instead. I don't really see the point
>> of forcing everyone to use backend connections when libpq connections
>> are enough.
Requiring a libpq connection is a good indication for *not* wanting the
process to run under the postmaster, IMO.
>> In particular, they are easier to port from existing code;
>> and they make it easier to share code with systems that still have to
>> support older PG versions.
>
> They also can get away with a lot more crazy stuff without corrupting
> the database.
Exactly. That's a good reason to *not* tie that to the postmaster, then.
Please keep as much of the potentially dangerous stuff separate (and
advice developers to do so as well, instead of offering them a foot
gun). So that our postmaster can do its job. And do it reliably, without
trying to be a general purpose start/stop daemon. There are better and
well established tools for that.
Regards
Markus Wanner
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2012-11-30 13:32:14 | Re: missing LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE) in trigger.c GetTupleForTrigger? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-30 13:25:23 | Re: missing LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE) in trigger.c GetTupleForTrigger? |