From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2012-09-06 17:56:52 |
Message-ID: | 1346954212.17637.8.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 17:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no
> administrative hassles", and I believe that has to go not only for the
> end-user experience but also for the application-developer experience.
> If you have to manage checkpointing and vacuuming in the application,
> you're probably soon going to look for another database.
Maybe there could be some hooks (e.g., right after completing a
statement) that see whether a vacuum or checkpoint is required? VACUUM
can't be run in a transaction block[1], so there are some details to
work out, but it might be a workable approach.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
[1]: It seems like the only reason for that is so a multi-table vacuum
doesn't hold locks for longer than it needs to, but that's not much of a
concern in this case.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-09-06 19:39:04 | Re: BUG #7521: Cannot disable WAL log while using pg_dump |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-09-06 17:01:01 | Re: embedded list v2 |