Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process

On 09/14/2010 06:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> As a matter of project management, I am inclined to think that until
> we've hammered out this issue, there's not a whole lot useful that can
> be done on any of the BG worker patches. So I am wondering if we
> should set those to Returned with Feedback or bump them to a future
> CommitFest.

I agree in general. I certainly don't want to hold back the commit fest.

What bugs me a bit is that I didn't really get much feedback regarding
the *bgworker* portion of code. Especially as that's the part I'm most
interested in feedback.

However, I currently don't have any time to work on these patches, so
I'm fine with dropping them from the current commit fest.

> The good news is that, after a lot of back and forth, I think we've
> identified the reason underpinning much of why Markus and I have been
> disagreeing about dynshmem and imessages - namely, whether or not it's
> possible to allocate shared_buffers as something other than one giant
> slab without taking an unacceptable performance hit.

Agreed.

Regards

Markus Wanner