Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker

On 11/30/2012 03:16 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> This feature does not enforce them to implement with this new framework.
> If they can perform as separate daemons, it is fine enough.

I'm not clear on what exactly you envision, but if a process needs
access to shared buffers, it sounds like it should be a bgworker. I
don't quite understand why that process also wants a libpq connection,
but that's certainly doable.

> But it is not all the cases where we want background workers being tied
> with postmaster's duration.

Not wanting a process to be tied to postmaster's duration is a strong
indication that it better not be a bgworker, I think.

Regards

Markus Wanner