Hi,
On 09/14/2010 07:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Okay, great.
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.
They don't. Even with bgworker, every backend stays connected to the
same backend. You configure the min and max amounts of idle backends
*per database*. Plus the overall max of background workers, IIRC.
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
