On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 5:39 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> On 07.06.23 23:30, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Yea, we definitely need the supervisor function in a separate
> > process. Presumably that means we need to split off some of the postmaster
> > responsibilities - e.g. I don't think it'd make sense to handle connection
> > establishment in the supervisor process. I wonder if this is something that
> > could end up being beneficial even in the process world.
>
> Something to think about perhaps ... how would that be different from
> using an existing external supervisor process like systemd or supervisord.
systemd wouldn't start individual PostgreSQL processes, right? If we
want a checkpointer and a wal writer and a background writer and
whatever we have to have our own supervisor process to spawn all those
and keep them running. We could remove the logic to do a full system
reset without a postmaster exit in favor of letting systemd restart
everything from scratch, if we wanted to do that. But we'd still need
our own supervisor to start up all of the individual threads/processes
that we need.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
