From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: Carefully exposing information without authentication |
Date: | 2025-05-31 01:34:47 |
Message-ID: | 2724612.1748655287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Good question. Forking is expensive, and there is also a lot of
> housekeeping associated with it that is simply not needed here. We want
> this to be lightweight, and simple. No need to fork if we are just going to
> do a few strncmp() calls and a send().
send() can block. I think calling it in the postmaster is a
nonstarter. For comparison, we make an effort to not do any
communication with incoming clients until after forking a child
to do the communication. The one exception is if we have to
report fork failure --- but we don't make any strong guarantees
about that report succeeding. (IIRC, we put the port into nonblock
mode and try only once.) That's probably not a behavior you want
to adopt for non-edge-case usages.
Another point is that you'll recall that there's a lot of
interest in switching to a threaded model. The argument that
"fork is too expensive" may not have a long shelf life.
I'm not taking a position on whether $SUBJECT is a good idea
in the first place.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2025-05-31 03:00:00 | Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-05-31 00:48:52 | Re: Speedup truncations of temporary relation forks |