Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> It's a valid concern, but I think the way to handle it if needed is to limit
> the number of connections a user can open. Or perhaps another option would
> be to change the permissions on the related functions (do we check ACLs for
> internal functions?)

I'm not sure dump-and-restore would preserve any properties of
anything in pg_catalog.

Anyway, I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. The
questions I need answers to right now are:

- What should we call dsm_unkeep_mapping, if not that?
- Are there remaining complaints about patch #3?
- How can I get somebody to review patch #4?
- Does anyone have a tangible suggestion for how to reduce the code
duplication in patch #6?

The question of where pg_background should ultimately live does
matter, but the answer will be "the -hackers mailing list archives"
unless we can get agreement on the prerequisite patches.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company