Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Pre-forking backend

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Pre-forking backend
Date: 2001-09-29 18:38:29
Message-ID: 200109291838.f8TIcTQ00361@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > How hard would it be to pre-fork an extra backend
> 
> How are you going to pass the connection socket to an already-forked
> child process?  AFAIK there's no remotely portable way ...

No idea but it seemed like a nice optimization if we could do it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-09-29 18:39:34
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-09-29 18:37:49
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group