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

Re: Pre-forking backend

From: Bradley McLean <brad(at)bradm(dot)net>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pre-forking backend
Date: 2001-09-30 15:56:53
Message-ID: 20010930115653.B16547@bradm.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Gavin Sherry (swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au) [010930 06:13]:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 sean-pgsql-hackers(at)chittenden(dot)org wrote:
> 
> > > 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 ...
> > 
> > Umm... Apache?  They use a preforking model and it works quite well for 
> > every *NIX that Apache runs on.  ;)  Maybe RSE can comment on this 
> > further... -sc
> 
> It works very good for what Apache requires. Namely, to have a queue of
> processes ready to serve pages. Its not that simple with PostgreSQL - as
> the discussion so far has drawn out - since there is no simple way to
> guarantee that the 'right' child gets the socket. The reason why there
> needs to be a 'right' child is that a socket needs to be passed to a child
> which has started up for a given database. Otherwise, there's no benefit.

Interesting:  So as the number of databases served by a given system
approaches one, the efficiency of this increases.

Is it useful if it only works for one database within a server?  I can
envision applications for this.

-Brad

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-09-30 16:03:33
Subject: Re: CVS changes
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2001-09-30 15:40:20
Subject: Re: Glitch in handling of postmaster -o options

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