Re: dynamic background workers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Browne
Subject Re: dynamic background workers
Date
Msg-id CAFNqd5UBrZDv9ko532aH3=keY58MmkaM878HLc_n012yRjCHvw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to dynamic background workers  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
BTW, one of the ideas that popped up in the unConference session on replication was "why couldn't we use a background worker as a replication agent?"

The main reason pointed out was 'because that means you have to restart the postmaster to add a replication agent.'  (e.g. - like a Slony "slon" process)

There may well be other better reasons not to do so, but it would be nice to eliminate this reason.  It seems seriously limiting to the bg-worker concept for them to be thus restricted.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: [9.4 CF 1] Added in missing patches
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: [9.4 CF 1] What the 5-day Deadline Means