| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |
| Date: | 2012-11-30 14:27:47 |
| Message-ID: | 50B8C263.5040409@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/30/2012 03:16 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> This feature does not enforce them to implement with this new framework.
> If they can perform as separate daemons, it is fine enough.
I'm not clear on what exactly you envision, but if a process needs
access to shared buffers, it sounds like it should be a bgworker. I
don't quite understand why that process also wants a libpq connection,
but that's certainly doable.
> But it is not all the cases where we want background workers being tied
> with postmaster's duration.
Not wanting a process to be tied to postmaster's duration is a strong
indication that it better not be a bgworker, I think.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-30 14:30:20 | Re: Re: missing LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE) in trigger.c GetTupleForTrigger? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-11-30 14:23:59 | Re: WIP: index support for regexp search |