Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)
Дата
Msg-id 9434.1266901332@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Ответы Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>)
Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)  (Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Regarding hooks or events, I think postmaster should be kept simple:
> launch at start, reset at crash recovery, kill at stop.  Salt and pepper
> allowed but that's about it -- more complex ingredients are out of the
> question due to added code to postmaster, which we want to be as robust
> as possible and thus not able to cook much of anything else.

This is exactly why I think the whole proposal is a nonstarter.  It is
necessarily pushing more complexity into the postmaster, which means
an overall reduction in system reliability.  There are some things
I'm willing to accept extra postmaster complexity for, but I say again
that not one single one of the arguments made in this thread are
convincing reasons to take that risk.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Takahiro Itagaki
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables