Re: Let's start talking features and "theme" for 9.4

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Let's start talking features and "theme" for 9.4
Date: 2014-05-02 09:10:58
Message-ID: CAFj8pRA8+J17PxmmL1B8b-4bfbHvpQPcp7g7rG7Skune=BuY8Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

2014-05-02 10:56 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>:

> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 08:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > but I am looking for, so in early next versions some interesting
> bgworkers
> > > will be in core - scheduler, idle connection killer, multi CPU sorter,
> ...
> > -1 for that. Those bgworkers things satisfy very specific needs (I
> > implemented one of them in the list). I'd rather see a wiki page
> > listing them properly and let each implementer maintain their code.
> >
>
> Completely agree with Michael. I see them just like FDWs. We don't add
> some FDW in the core. Some are contrib modules, some are available
> elsewhere. BgWorkers should be handled the same way.
>

When I spoke "core" - I though a "contrib" resp. upstream

Pavel

>
> > > So I am thinking, it should be marked as "other" feature this year.
> > +1 for that. Dynamic background workers is a hacker feature.
>
> +1
>
>
> --
> Guillaume
> http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
> http://www.dalibo.com
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Lelarge 2014-05-02 09:35:36 Re: Let's start talking features and "theme" for 9.4
Previous Message Guillaume Lelarge 2014-05-02 08:56:28 Re: Let's start talking features and "theme" for 9.4