mirror of
https://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git
synced 2024-12-09 08:10:09 +08:00
103 lines
5.6 KiB
Plaintext
103 lines
5.6 KiB
Plaintext
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Mon May 11 11:31:09 1998
|
|
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4])
|
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03006
|
|
for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.47.148.200]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$ Revision: 1.17 $) with ESMTP id LAA01663 for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) with SMTP id LAA21841; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Mon, 11 May 1998 11:15:12 +0000 (EDT)
|
|
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) id LAA21683 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:15:09 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [206.210.65.6]) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) with ESMTP id LAA21451 for <hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:15:03 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA24915;
|
|
Mon, 11 May 1998 11:14:43 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
To: Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org>
|
|
cc: hackers@postgreSQL.org
|
|
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]
|
|
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 11 May 1998 07:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
<13655.4384.345723.466046@abraxas.scene.com>
|
|
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:14:43 -0400
|
|
Message-ID: <24913.894899683@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
|
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
|
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
Status: RO
|
|
|
|
Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org> writes:
|
|
> same way that the current network socket is passed -- through an execv
|
|
> argument. hopefully, however, the non-execv()ing fork will be in 6.4.
|
|
|
|
Um, you missed the point, Brett. David was hoping to transfer a client
|
|
connection from the postmaster to an *already existing* backend process.
|
|
Fork, with or without exec, solves the problem for a backend that's
|
|
started after the postmaster has accepted the client socket.
|
|
|
|
This does lead to a different line of thought, however. Pre-started
|
|
backends would have access to the "master" connection socket on which
|
|
the postmaster listens for client connections, right? Suppose that we
|
|
fire the postmaster as postmaster, and demote it to being simply a
|
|
manufacturer of new backend processes as old ones get used up. Have
|
|
one of the idle backend processes be the one doing the accept() on the
|
|
master socket. Once it has a client connection, it performs the
|
|
authentication handshake and then starts serving the client (or just
|
|
quits if authentication fails). Meanwhile the next idle backend process
|
|
has executed accept() on the master socket and is waiting for the next
|
|
client; and shortly the postmaster/factory/whateverwecallitnow notices
|
|
that it needs to start another backend to add to the idle-backend pool.
|
|
|
|
This'd probably need some interlocking among the backends. I have no
|
|
idea whether it'd be safe to have all the idle backends trying to
|
|
do accept() on the master socket simultaneously, but it sounds risky.
|
|
Better to use a mutex so that only one gets to do it while the others
|
|
sleep.
|
|
|
|
regards, tom lane
|
|
|
|
|
|
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Mon May 11 11:35:55 1998
|
|
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.47.148.200])
|
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03043
|
|
for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:35:53 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) with SMTP id LAA23494; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Mon, 11 May 1998 11:27:02 +0000 (EDT)
|
|
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) id LAA23473 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:27:01 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [206.210.65.6]) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) with ESMTP id LAA23462 for <hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:26:56 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA25006;
|
|
Mon, 11 May 1998 11:26:44 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
To: Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org>
|
|
cc: hackers@postgreSQL.org
|
|
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]
|
|
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 11 May 1998 07:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
<13655.4384.345723.466046@abraxas.scene.com>
|
|
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:26:44 -0400
|
|
Message-ID: <25004.894900404@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
|
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
|
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
Status: RO
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, *I* missed the point about Brett's second comment :-(
|
|
|
|
Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org> writes:
|
|
> There will have to be some sort of arg parsing in any case,
|
|
> considering that you can pass configurable arguments to the backend..
|
|
|
|
If we do the sort of change David and I were just discussing, then the
|
|
pre-spawned backend would become responsible for parsing and dealing
|
|
with the PGOPTIONS portion of the client's connection request message.
|
|
That's just part of shifting the authentication handshake code from
|
|
postmaster to backend, so it shouldn't be too hard.
|
|
|
|
BUT: the whole point is to be able to initialize the backend before it
|
|
is connected to a client. How much of the expensive backend startup
|
|
work depends on having the client connection options available?
|
|
Any work that needs to know the options will have to wait until after
|
|
the client connects. If that means most of the startup work can't
|
|
happen in advance anyway, then we're out of luck; a pre-started backend
|
|
won't save enough time to be worth the effort. (Unless we are willing
|
|
to eliminate or redefine the troublesome options...)
|
|
|
|
regards, tom lane
|
|
|
|
|