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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMKvnim2n6tpWDXAD6m+H_OJ4W9iEdBLW8nRR1kNBKNv6Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Responses Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3 December 2012 15:17, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:

>>> Just like av_launcher does it now: set a flag in shared memory and
>>> signal the postmaster (PMSIGNAL_START_AUTOVAC_WORKER).
>>
>> I'm not sure how this works.  What process is in charge of setting such
>> a flag?
>
> The only process that currently starts background workers ... ehm ...
> autovacuum workers is the autovacuum launcher. It uses the above
> Postmaster Signal in autovacuum.c:do_start_autovacuum_worker() to have
> the postmaster launch bg/autovac workers on demand.

My understanding was that the patch keep autovac workers and
background workers separate at this point.

Is there anything to be gained *now* from merging those two concepts?
I saw that as refactoring that can occur once we are happy it should
take place, but isn't necessary.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL