Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So I'm wondering what the design rationale was for only starting one
> >> bgworker per invocation.
> 
> > The rationale was that there may be other tasks waiting for postmaster
> > attention, and if there are many bgworkers needing to be started, the
> > other work may be delayed for a long time.  This is not the first time
> > that this rationale has been challenged, but so far there hasn't been
> > any good reason to change it.  One option is to just remove it as you
> > propose, but a different one is to stop using select(2) in ServerLoop,
> > because those behavior differences seem to make it rather unusable.
> 
> Hm.  Do you have a more-portable alternative?

I was thinking in a WaitEventSet from latch.c.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services