Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date
Msg-id 2479.1492641442@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'm wondering what the design rationale was for only starting one
>> bgworker per invocation.

> The rationale was that there may be other tasks waiting for postmaster
> attention, and if there are many bgworkers needing to be started, the
> other work may be delayed for a long time.  This is not the first time
> that this rationale has been challenged, but so far there hasn't been
> any good reason to change it.  One option is to just remove it as you
> propose, but a different one is to stop using select(2) in ServerLoop,
> because those behavior differences seem to make it rather unusable.

Hm.  Do you have a more-portable alternative?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start