On 12/13/21, 9:20 AM, "Justin Pryzby" <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 08:53:37AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> Another issue is that we don't want to increase the number of >> processes without bound. Processes use memory and CPU resources and if >> we run too many of them it becomes a burden on the system. Low-end >> systems may not have too many resources in total, and high-end systems >> can struggle to fit demanding workloads within the resources that they >> have. Maybe it would be cheaper to do more things at once if we were >> using threads rather than processes, but that day still seems fairly >> far off. > > Maybe that's an argument that this should be a dynamic background worker > instead of an auxilliary process. Then maybe it would be controlled by > max_parallel_maintenance_workers (or something similar). The checkpointer > would need to do these tasks itself if parallel workers were disabled or > couldn't be launched.
I think this is an interesting idea. I dislike the prospect of having two code paths for all this stuff, but if it addresses the concerns about resource usage, maybe it's worth it. Nathan
