Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar sep 14 13:46:17 -0400 2010: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > I think we've had enough problems with the current design of forking a > > new autovac process every once in a while, that I'd like to have them as > > permanent processes instead, waiting for orders from the autovac > > launcher. From that POV, bgworkers would make sense. > > That seems like a fairly large can of worms to open: we have never tried > to make backends switch from one database to another, and I don't think > I'd want to start such a project with autovac.
Yeah, what I was thinking is that each worker would still die after completing the run, but a new one would be started immediately; it would go to sleep until a new assignment arrived. (What got me into this was the whole latch thing, actually.) This is a very raw idea however, so don't mind me much. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
