Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 09/08/16 10:13, Craig Ringer wrote: > >The only argument I can see for not using bgworkers is for the > >supervisor worker. It's a singleton that launches the per-database > >workers, and arguably is a job that the postmaster could do better. The > >current design there stems from its origins as an extension. Maybe > >worker management could be simplified a bit as a result. I'd really > >rather not invent yet another new and mostly duplicate category of > >custom workers to achieve that though. > > It is simplified compared to pglogical (there is only 2 worker types not 3). > I don't think it's job of postmaster to scan catalogs however so it can't > really start workers for logical replication. I actually modeled it more > after autovacuum (using bgworkers though) than the original extension.
Yeah, it's a very bad idea to put postmaster on this task. We should definitely stay away from that. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
