| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dynamic background workers |
| Date: | 2013-06-17 22:46:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAFNqd5UBrZDv9ko532aH3=keY58MmkaM878HLc_n012yRjCHvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
BTW, one of the ideas that popped up in the unConference session on
replication was "why couldn't we use a background worker as a replication
agent?"
The main reason pointed out was 'because that means you have to restart the
postmaster to add a replication agent.' (e.g. - like a Slony "slon"
process)
There may well be other better reasons not to do so, but it would be nice
to eliminate this reason. It seems seriously limiting to the bg-worker
concept for them to be thus restricted.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-17 22:58:04 | [9.4 CF 1] What the 5-day Deadline Means |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-17 22:41:54 | [9.4 CF 1] Added in missing patches |