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

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
Date
Msg-id m2mwxzb6ws.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Responses Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
List pgsql-hackers
Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> AFAICS pgqd currently uses libpq, so I think it would rather turn into
> what I call a background worker, with a connection to Postgres shared
> memory. I perfectly well see use cases (plural!) for those.
>
> What I'm questioning is the use for what I rather call "extra daemons",
> that is, additional processes started by the postmaster without a
> connection to Postgres shared memory (and thus without a database
> connection).

I totally missed the need to connect to shared memory to be able to
connect to a database and query it. Can't we just link the bgworkder
code to the client libpq library, just as plproxy is doing I believe?

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: missing LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE) in trigger.c GetTupleForTrigger?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: missing LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE) in trigger.c GetTupleForTrigger?