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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements
Date
Msg-id AANLkTikD6FMg9ioeJTwShA6gP=qK1beyTvF9cSLwLd-w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Responses Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 03:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Wait, are we in violent agreement here?  An overall limit on the
>> number of parallel jobs is exactly what I think *does* make sense.
>> It's the other knobs I find odd.
>
> Note that the max setting I've been talking about here is the maximum
> amount of *idle* workers allowed. It does not include busy bgworkers.

Oh, wow.  Is there another limit on the total number of bgworkers?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: What happened to the is_ family of functions proposal?
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: moving development branch activity to new git repo