| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-02-23 02:53:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20180223025339.ayoik45kcca7cl2s@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
How does:
On 2018-02-23 11:48:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:24:37AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I suspect I'm going to get some grief for this, but I think the time has
> > come to bite the bullet and support changing databases in the same
> > process...
>
> I'd like to see that. Last time this has been discussed, and Robert
> complained to me immediately when I suggested it, is that this is not
> worth it with the many complications around syscache handling and
> resource cleanup.
relate to:
> It is in the long term more stable to use a model
> where a parent process handles a set of children and decides to which
> database each child should spawn, which is what autovacuum does.
?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-02-23 02:55:29 | Re: Translations contributions urgently needed |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-02-23 02:48:16 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |