Excerpts from Markus Wanner's message of mié nov 17 07:04:04 -0300 2010: > > Thoughts? > > The question obviously is whether or not this is faster than just > terminating one backend and starting a new one. Which basically costs an > additional termination and re-creation of a process (i.e. fork()) > AFAICS. Or what other savings do you envision?
I don't think it's a speed thing only. It would be a great thing to have in autovacuum, for example, where we have constant problem reports because the system failed to fork a new backend. If we could simply reuse an already existing one, it would be a lot more robust. -- 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
