On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > On February 22, 2018 11:44:17 AM PST, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > >wrote: > >In this particular case that would at least phase 1 simplify it because > >we'd only need one process instead of worker/launcher. However, if we'd > >ever want to parallellize it -- or any other process of the style, like > >autovacuum -- you'd still need a launcher+worker combo. So making that > >particular scenario simpler might be worthwhile on it's own. > > Why is that needed? You can just start two bgworkers and process a list of > items stored in shared memory. Or even just check, I assume there'd be a > catalog flag somewhere, whether a database / table / object of granularity > has already been processed and use locking to prevent concurrent access. > You could do that, but then you've moving the complexity to managing that list in shared memory instead. I'm not sure that's any easier... And certainly adding a catalog flag for a usecase like this one is not making it easier. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
