Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process

Hi,

On 09/14/2010 07:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera<alvherre@commandprompt.com>  writes:
>> I think we've had enough problems with the current design of forking a
>> new autovac process every once in a while, that I'd like to have them as
>> permanent processes instead, waiting for orders from the autovac
>> launcher.  From that POV, bgworkers would make sense.

Okay, great.

> That seems like a fairly large can of worms to open: we have never tried
> to make backends switch from one database to another, and I don't think
> I'd want to start such a project with autovac.

They don't. Even with bgworker, every backend stays connected to the 
same backend. You configure the min and max amounts of idle backends 
*per database*. Plus the overall max of background workers, IIRC.

Regards

Markus Wanner