From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_autovacuum Win32 Service startup delay |
Date: | 2005-01-25 16:20:53 |
Message-ID: | 41F671E5.3000300@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>In the windows service world, is there any reason pg_autovacuum should
>>ever give up?
>>
>>
>
>I was a bit worried about the scenario in which J Random Luser tries to
>start the server twice and ends up with two autovacuum daemons attached
>to the same postmaster. I'm not sure if this is possible, probable,
>or dangerous ... but it seems like a point to consider.
>
It is a good point to consider. Let me be a little more detailed in my
explanation and see if that helps:
* A never give up pg_autovacuum would only be used when run as a windows
service.
* The windows service control manager can still kill pg_autovacuum, so
you shouldn't be able to start more than one that way.
* You have always been able to run multiple pg_autovacuums, it's not
advisable, and it's only bad side effect would be excessive, or more
than expected, vacuum commands.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-01-25 16:25:47 | Re: [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow && pg_group -- UNTESTED |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-25 15:56:38 | Re: WAL: O_DIRECT and multipage-writer |