Re: CLOG extension - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: CLOG extension
Date
Msg-id 15614.1336080856@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CLOG extension  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: CLOG extension
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of jue may 03 17:04:03 -0400 2012:
>> I sort of care about this, but only on systems that are not very busy
>> and could otherwise get by with fewer resources -- for example, it'd
>> be nice to turn off autovacuum and the stat collector if it really
>> doesn't have to be around.  Perhaps a Nap Commander[0] process or
>> procedure (if baked into postmaster, to optimize to one process from
>> two) would do the trick?

> I'm not sure I see the point in worrying about this at all.  I mean, a
> process doing nothing does not waste much resources, does it?  Other
> than keeping a PID that you can't use for other stuff.

Even more to the point, killing a process and then relaunching it
whenever there's something for it to do seems likely to consume *more*
resources than just letting it sit.  (So long as it's only just sitting,
of course.  Processes with periodic-wakeup logic are another matter.)

Note that I'm not particularly in favor of having Yet Another process
just to manage clog extension; the incremental complexity seems way
more than anyone has shown to be justified.  But the "resources"
argument against it seems pretty weak.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Farina
Date:
Subject: Re: CLOG extension
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: Have we out-grown Flex?