Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From tomas@tuxteam.de
Subject Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements
Date
Msg-id 20100918054153.GA14872@tomas
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:21:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

[...]

> Wow, 100 processes??! Really?  I guess I don't actually know how large
> modern proctables are, but on my MacOS X machine, for example, there
> are only 75 processes showing up right now in "ps auxww".  My Fedora
> 12 machine has 97.  That's including a PostgreSQL instance in the
> first case and an Apache instance in the second case.  So 100 workers
> seems like a ton to me.

As an equally unscientific data point, on my box, a typical desktop box
(actually a netbook, slow CPU, but beefed up to 2GB RAM), I have 5
PostgreSQL processes running, which take away about 1.2 MB (resident) --
not each one, but together!. As a contrast, there is *one* mysql daemon
(don't ask!), taking away 17 MB. The worst offenders are, by far, the
eye-candy thingies, as one has become accustomed to expect :-(

What I wanted to say is that the PostgreSQL processes are unusually
light-weight by modern standards.

Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMlFEhBcgs9XrR2kYRAlqHAJ9rz5eQhqnh62H5QljDjU0E68ai6wCffnCW
ybV0RIdDy769/JYBBq7xakA=
=7Vc/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: compile/install of git