| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin(at)acm(dot)org>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: background sessions |
| Date: | 2017-01-12 04:01:12 |
| Message-ID: | 72dbd5e7-ed8f-33b1-90bf-5ee68d6361ef@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/10/17 10:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> For additional entertainment, I include patches that integrate
>> background sessions into dblink. So dblink can open a connection to a
>> background session, and then you can use the existing dblink functions
>> to send queries, read results, etc. People use dblink to make
>> self-connections to get autonomous subsessions, so this would directly
>> address that use case. The 0001 patch is some prerequisite refactoring
>> to remove an ugly macro mess, which is useful independent of this. 0002
>> is the actual patch.
>
> Would that constitute a complete replacement for pg_background?
I think so.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-01-12 04:09:34 | Re: WARM and indirect indexes |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2017-01-12 03:59:45 | Re: Retiring from the Core Team |