On 01.01.2024 09:47, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> All use cases of pg_background, except asynchronous execution. If
> later
> add asynchronous execution, then all =)
>
> For example, also:
>
> * conversion from Oracle's `PRAGMA AUTONOMOUS` to Postgres.
>
> * possibility to create functions that calls utility statements, like
> VACUUM, etc.
>
>
> almost all these tasks are more or less dirty. It is a serious
> question if we want to integrate pg_background to core.
What do you mean by the "dirty"?
>
> I don't have good benchmarks now. Some simple, like many INSERTs.
> Pool
> gives advantage, more tps compared to pg_background with increasing
> number of backends.
>
> The main advantage over pg_background is pool of workers. In this
> patch
> separate pool is created for each backend. At the current time I'm
> coding one shared pool for all backends.
>
>
> I afraid so this solution can be very significantly slower than
> logging to postgres log or forwarding to syslog
Maybe. Need to benchmark. Also OLAP like ClickHouse is better for
storing logs.
But in this case (log file -> database) a company needs to write a
custom utility to load log file to the database:
* detect file size,
* load to database
* autorotate file by timeout of filesize
* etc.
Some of our customers use "Autonomous transactions" for logging =)
--
Best wishes,
Ivan Kush
Tantor Labs LLC
