Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> One of the uses for bgworkers that don't have shmem connection is to >> have them use libpq connections instead. I don't really see the point >> of forcing everyone to use backend connections when libpq connections >> are enough. In particular, they are easier to port from existing code; >> and they make it easier to share code with systems that still have to >> support older PG versions.
Exactly, I think most bgworker would just use libpq if that's available, using a backend's infrastructure is not that good a fit here. I mean, connect from your worker to a database using libpq and call a backend's function (provided by the same extension I guess) in there. That's how I think pgqd would get integrated into the worker infrastructure, right? > They also can get away with a lot more crazy stuff without corrupting > the database. You better know something about what youre doing before > doing something with direct shared memory access. And there's a whole lot you can already do just with a C coded stored procedure already. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
