| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning. |
| Date: | 2010-07-13 14:42:23 |
| Message-ID: | 87d3ur78a8.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging
> and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the
> existing solutions, but there is a need for making sure that they are
> readily available and people know when to use them.
On this topic, I think we're getting back to the idea of having non-core
daemon helpers that should get "supervised" the way postmaster already
does with backends wrt starting and stoping them at the right time.
So a supervisor daemon with a supervisor API that would have to support
autovacuum as a use case, then things like pgagent, PGQ and pgbouncer,
would be very welcome.
What about starting a new thread about that? Or you already know you
won't want to push the extensibility of PostgreSQL there?
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-07-13 14:44:13 | Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning. |
| Previous Message | Elias Ghanem | 2010-07-13 11:48:09 | Queries with conditions using bitand operator |