| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| 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 15:59:01 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikD6FMg9ioeJTwShA6gP=qK1beyTvF9cSLwLd-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 03:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Wait, are we in violent agreement here? An overall limit on the
>> number of parallel jobs is exactly what I think *does* make sense.
>> It's the other knobs I find odd.
>
> Note that the max setting I've been talking about here is the maximum
> amount of *idle* workers allowed. It does not include busy bgworkers.
Oh, wow. Is there another limit on the total number of bgworkers?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-09-21 15:59:09 | Re: moving development branch activity to new git repo |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-21 15:56:51 | Re: What happened to the is_<type> family of functions proposal? |