| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: dynamic background workers |
| Date: | 2013-07-03 15:15:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20130703151544.GB3592@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund escribió:
> Just as a datapoint, if you benchmark the numbers of forks that can be
> performed by a single process (i.e. postmaster) the number is easily in
> the 10s of thousands. Now forking that much has some scalability
> implications inside the kernel, but still.
> I'd be surprised if the actual fork is more than 5-10% of the current
> cost of starting a new backend.
I played at having some thousands of registered bgworkers on my laptop,
and there wasn't even that much load. So yeah, you can have lots of
forks.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-07-03 15:18:55 | Re: possible/feasible to specify field and value in error msg? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-07-03 15:14:18 | Re: possible/feasible to specify field and value in error msg? |