On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:42, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging
>> and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the
>> existing solutions, but there is a need for making sure that they are
>> readily available and people know when to use them.
>
> On this topic, I think we're getting back to the idea of having non-core
> daemon helpers that should get "supervised" the way postmaster already
> does with backends wrt starting and stoping them at the right time.
>
> So a supervisor daemon with a supervisor API that would have to support
> autovacuum as a use case, then things like pgagent, PGQ and pgbouncer,
> would be very welcome.
>
> What about starting a new thread about that? Or you already know you
> won't want to push the extensibility of PostgreSQL there?
+1 on this idea in general, if we can think up a good API - this seems
very useful to me, and you have some good examples there of cases
where it'd definitely be a help.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
