| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Date: | 2017-04-19 22:37:22 |
| Message-ID: | 2479.1492641442@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'm wondering what the design rationale was for only starting one
>> bgworker per invocation.
> The rationale was that there may be other tasks waiting for postmaster
> attention, and if there are many bgworkers needing to be started, the
> other work may be delayed for a long time. This is not the first time
> that this rationale has been challenged, but so far there hasn't been
> any good reason to change it. One option is to just remove it as you
> propose, but a different one is to stop using select(2) in ServerLoop,
> because those behavior differences seem to make it rather unusable.
Hm. Do you have a more-portable alternative?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-04-19 22:44:24 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-04-19 22:24:15 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |