Re: Autovacuum PGPROCs in ProcGlobal? (was Re: autovacuum multiworkers) - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Autovacuum PGPROCs in ProcGlobal? (was Re: autovacuum multiworkers)
Date
Msg-id 22586.1176392997@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Autovacuum PGPROCs in ProcGlobal? (was Re: autovacuum multiworkers)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> It seems like I'll have to decouple autovacuum PGPROC's from
> autovacuum's own shared memory.  The most sensible way to do this seems
> to be to store them in ProcGlobal, along with the regular backend's
> PGPROCs.  Is everyone OK with this plan?

> Note that this will mean that those PGPROCs will be protected by the
> same spinlock that protects the other PGPROCs.  I can't think of any
> reason why this would be a problem, but if you think otherwise please
> speak up.

I thought the separate pool of PGPROCs was a bit weird.  If you're going
back to a common pool, I'm all for it.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem
Next
From: Trevor Hardcastle
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support