Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1346954212.17637.8.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 17:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no > administrative hassles", and I believe that has to go not only for the > end-user experience but also for the application-developer experience. > If you have to manage checkpointing and vacuuming in the application, > you're probably soon going to look for another database. Maybe there could be some hooks (e.g., right after completing a statement) that see whether a vacuum or checkpoint is required? VACUUM can't be run in a transaction block[1], so there are some details to work out, but it might be a workable approach. Regards,Jeff Davis [1]: It seems like the only reason for that is so a multi-table vacuum doesn't hold locks for longer than it needs to, but that's not much of a concern in this case.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: