Re: Online enabling of checksums

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: Online enabling of checksums
Дата
Msg-id CABUevExzqjsw0GqVo92rf3JsK-KZkG347xZr_+qQDZrOgaRMbg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Online enabling of checksums  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: Online enabling of checksums  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:


On February 22, 2018 11:44:17 AM PST, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
>wrote:
>In this particular case that would at least phase 1 simplify it because
>we'd only need one process instead of worker/launcher. However, if we'd
>ever want to parallellize it -- or any other process of the style, like
>autovacuum -- you'd still need a launcher+worker combo. So making that
>particular scenario simpler might be worthwhile on it's own.

Why is that needed? You can just start two bgworkers and process a list of items stored in shared memory. Or even just check, I assume there'd be a catalog flag somewhere, whether a database / table / object of granularity has already been processed and use locking to prevent concurrent access.

You could do that, but then you've moving the complexity to managing that list in shared memory instead. I'm not  sure that's any easier... And certainly adding a catalog flag for a usecase like this one is not making it easier.

--

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Online enabling of checksums