On 11/30/2012 03:16 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote: > This feature does not enforce them to implement with this new framework. > If they can perform as separate daemons, it is fine enough.
I'm not clear on what exactly you envision, but if a process needs access to shared buffers, it sounds like it should be a bgworker. I don't quite understand why that process also wants a libpq connection, but that's certainly doable. > But it is not all the cases where we want background workers being tied > with postmaster's duration. Not wanting a process to be tied to postmaster's duration is a strong indication that it better not be a bgworker, I think. 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
