On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
<petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> So, frankly, I think we would be best off losing the "logical rep
>> worker slot" business altogether, and making do with just bgworker
>> slots.
I think that would be cleaner as compared to what we have now.
>> The alternative is getting the postmaster involved in cleaning
>> up lrep slots as well as bgworker slots, and I'm going to resist
>> any such idea strongly. That way madness lies, or at least an
>> unreliable postmaster --- if we need lrep slots, what other forty-seven
>> data structures are we going to need the postmaster to clean up
>> in the future?
>>
>> I haven't studied the code enough to know why it grew lrep worker
>> slots in the first place. Maybe someone could explain?
>>
>
> I am not quite sure I understand this question, we need to store
> additional info about workers in shared memory so we need slots for that.
>
Yeah, but you could have used the way we do for parallel query where
we setup dsm and share all such information. You can check the logic
of execparallel.c and parallel.c to see how we do all such stuff for
parallel query.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
