On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:42, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging >> and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the >> existing solutions, but there is a need for making sure that they are >> readily available and people know when to use them. > > On this topic, I think we're getting back to the idea of having non-core > daemon helpers that should get "supervised" the way postmaster already > does with backends wrt starting and stoping them at the right time. > > So a supervisor daemon with a supervisor API that would have to support > autovacuum as a use case, then things like pgagent, PGQ and pgbouncer, > would be very welcome. > > What about starting a new thread about that? Or you already know you > won't want to push the extensibility of PostgreSQL there? +1 on this idea in general, if we can think up a good API - this seems very useful to me, and you have some good examples there of cases where it'd definitely be a help. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
