* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > 1. Any other opinions for or against pg_background as a concept? I > > thought the ability to kick of vacuums (or other stuff with > > PreventTransactionChain) asynchronously was pretty cool, as we as the > > ability to use it as an authentication-free loopback dblink. But > > opinions obviously vary. > > I think it's a cool concept, but I'm not sure if it's worth the work to > make it fully usable. Or rather, I think it's worthy enough, but I > personally would priorize other stuff.
I've not read through the whole thread/discussionm but I'd put myself in more-or-less the same boat at this point. I've got a number of other things on my plate already that need to get done (more RLS cleanup / consistency, back-patching the ereport() column-privs issue, reviewing pgAudit, the less-than-superuser privileges work, actually helping out with the in-progress commitfest..) and so I really doubt I'd be able to seriously help with pg_background- at least for 9.5, which is coming up awful fast at this point, if we're going to stick with the 'normal' schedule and freeze in the spring. That said, I love the concept and had really been hoping to see it in 9.5, and maybe some at or cron-like ability happening later (yes, I absolutely feel we need this, though I know others have different opinions..). > > 2. Is anyone sufficiently interested in pg_background as a concept > > that they'd be willing to take over the patch and work on the TODO > > list mentioned above? > > I personally won't. If we can come up with a sketch of how to deal with > the data transport encoding issue above, I'd be willing to to work on > that specific part. But not pg_background in itself. If other things get done or additional resources show up, I'd be interested in helping, but I don't see either happening in time for 9.5. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature