2012/11/30 Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch>: > Alvaro, > > On 11/30/2012 02:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> So it >> makes easier to have processes that need to run alongside postmaster. > > That's where we are in respectful disagreement, then. As I don't think > that's easier, overall, but in my eye, this looks like a foot gun. > > As long as things like pgbouncer, pgqd, etc.. keep to be available as > separate daemons, I'm happy, though. > This feature does not enforce them to implement with this new framework. If they can perform as separate daemons, it is fine enough.
But it is not all the cases where we want background workers being tied with postmaster's duration. -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
