On 11/30/2012 01:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2012-11-30 09:57:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> 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.
Requiring a libpq connection is a good indication for *not* wanting the process to run under the postmaster, IMO. >> 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. > > They also can get away with a lot more crazy stuff without corrupting > the database. Exactly. That's a good reason to *not* tie that to the postmaster, then. Please keep as much of the potentially dangerous stuff separate (and advice developers to do so as well, instead of offering them a foot gun). So that our postmaster can do its job. And do it reliably, without trying to be a general purpose start/stop daemon. There are better and well established tools for that. Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
