Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Markus Wanner
Subject Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
Date
Msg-id 50B8C263.5040409@bluegap.ch
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker  (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>)
Responses Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/30/2012 03:16 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> This feature does not enforce them to implement with this new framework.
> If they can perform as separate daemons, it is fine enough.

I'm not clear on what exactly you envision, but if a process needs
access to shared buffers, it sounds like it should be a bgworker. I
don't quite understand why that process also wants a libpq connection,
but that's certainly doable.

> But it is not all the cases where we want background workers being tied
> with postmaster's duration.

Not wanting a process to be tied to postmaster's duration is a strong
indication that it better not be a bgworker, I think.

Regards

Markus Wanner



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: index support for regexp search
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: missing LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE) in trigger.c GetTupleForTrigger?