On 01.01.2024 09:47, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > All use cases of pg_background, except asynchronous execution. If > later > add asynchronous execution, then all =) > > For example, also: > > * conversion from Oracle's `PRAGMA AUTONOMOUS` to Postgres. > > * possibility to create functions that calls utility statements, like > VACUUM, etc. > > > almost all these tasks are more or less dirty. It is a serious > question if we want to integrate pg_background to core.
What do you mean by the "dirty"?
I don't think so these task should be implemented in stored procedures
> > I don't have good benchmarks now. Some simple, like many INSERTs. > Pool > gives advantage, more tps compared to pg_background with increasing > number of backends. > > The main advantage over pg_background is pool of workers. In this > patch > separate pool is created for each backend. At the current time I'm > coding one shared pool for all backends. > > > I afraid so this solution can be very significantly slower than > logging to postgres log or forwarding to syslog
Maybe. Need to benchmark. Also OLAP like ClickHouse is better for storing logs.
But in this case (log file -> database) a company needs to write a custom utility to load log file to the database:
* detect file size,
* load to database
* autorotate file by timeout of filesize
* etc.
Some of our customers use "Autonomous transactions" for logging =)
I understand the motivation. But it was designed 20 years ago, and I don't see a reason why we need to implement the same "bad" patterns, mainly when the proposed implementation is not fully robust or can have performance issues.
