Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
От | Dimitri Fontaine |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m2d2yvb5tu.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> One of the uses for bgworkers that don't have shmem connection is to >> have them use libpq connections instead. I don't really see the point >> of forcing everyone to use backend connections when libpq connections >> are enough. In particular, they are easier to port from existing code; >> and they make it easier to share code with systems that still have to >> support older PG versions. Exactly, I think most bgworker would just use libpq if that's available, using a backend's infrastructure is not that good a fit here. I mean, connect from your worker to a database using libpq and call a backend's function (provided by the same extension I guess) in there. That's how I think pgqd would get integrated into the worker infrastructure, right? > They also can get away with a lot more crazy stuff without corrupting > the database. You better know something about what youre doing before > doing something with direct shared memory access. And there's a whole lot you can already do just with a C coded stored procedure already. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: