| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core) |
| Date: | 2010-02-23 09:37:10 |
| Message-ID: | 87vddo5m49.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Regarding hooks or events, I think postmaster should be kept simple:
>> launch at start, reset at crash recovery, kill at stop.
>
> This is exactly why I think the whole proposal is a nonstarter. It is
> necessarily pushing more complexity into the postmaster, which means
> an overall reduction in system reliability.
I was under the illusion that having a separate "supervisor" process
child of postmaster to care about the user daemons would protect
postmaster itself. At least the only thing it'd have to do is start a
new child. Then let it care.
How much that would give us as far as postmaster reliability is concerned?
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-02-23 09:40:23 | Re: synchronous commit in dump |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-23 09:12:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Speed up CREATE DATABASE by deferring the fsyncs until after |