Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)
Date: 2014-10-24 17:13:09
Message-ID: 544A88A5.10206@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/22/14, 7:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> I lean toward a push into core because:

+1

> 3. I am not sure I buy into the super-user argument. Just because the functionality is there, doesn't mean it has to be used.

It's a valid concern, but I think the way to handle it if needed is to limit the number of connections a user can open. Or perhaps another option would be to change the permissions on the related functions (do we check ACLs for internal functions?)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2014-10-24 17:18:34 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-10-24 17:04:02 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}