Re: Backfill bgworker Extension?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Backfill bgworker Extension?
Date: 2017-12-12 20:26:12
Message-ID: b4df6eb4-0347-dc47-f052-7a500aaf9f78@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/12/17 13:03, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> To be clear, what I mean is batch updating a large set of data in small
> pieces so as to avoid things like lock contention and replication lags. 
> Sometimes these have a driving table that has the source data to update
> in a destination table based on a key column, but sometimes it is
> something like setting just a single specific value for a huge table.
>
> I would love instead to have a Postgres extension that uses postgres
> background workers to accomplish this, especially if it were part of
> core.  Before I venture into exploring writing something like this as an
> extension, would this ever be considered something appropriate as an
> extension in Postgres core?  Would that be appropriate?

I don't see what the common ground between different variants of this
use case would be. Aren't you basically just looking to execute a
use-case-specific stored procedure in the background?

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-12-12 20:26:35 Re: Learned Indexes in PostgreSQL?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-12-12 20:20:17 Re: Error generating coverage report