Re: Logical Replication WIP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: Logical Replication WIP
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YE09BCHCibU0GLR4eT1CXmUKWxpUmOvZmodhw8L5mU4UQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical Replication WIP  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Logical Replication WIP  (Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 9 August 2016 at 17:28, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Sure, you can go deeper down the rabbit hole here and say that we need to
> add bgworker "categories" with reserved pools of worker slots for each
> category. But do we really need that?

If we change these processes to bgworker, we can categorize them into
two, auxiliary process(check pointer and  wal sender etc) and other
worker process.
And max_worker_processes controls the latter.

Right. I think that's probably the direction we should be going eventually. Personally I don't think such a change should block the logical replication work from proceeding with bgworkers, though. It's been delayed a long time, a lot of people want it, and I think we need to focus on meeting the core requirements not getting too sidetracked on minor points.

Of course, everyone's idea of what's core and what's a minor sidetrack differs ;) 


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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical Replication WIP
Next
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical Replication WIP