| From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)upgrade(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Add GoAway protocol message for graceful but fast server shutdown/switchover |
| Date: | 2026-03-23 22:34:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAMFBP2rSvyj6DYAw0EEBGR2UUP85ByKAC_D0djJm7rdypuMvdQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 2:20 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
> * Does it make sense to tie this to smart shutdowns? I realize it's just
> an example, and it probably makes sense to send the GoAway message
> before a shutdown. But isn't this a bit similar to cancel/terminate of a
> backend? Why not to have a pg_goaway_backend() function, that'd send the
> message to a single backend? It might be useful for load-balancing, if
> we could pick a "heavy" backend and ask it to reconnect / move to a
> different replica. (Could that be handled by a middleware?)
>
+1. Another scenario that comes to mind is asking for a reconnect based on
backend memory consumption, since there's a bunch of internal structures
(relcache, etc) that can grow in an unbounded fashion.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2026-03-23 22:38:28 | Re: DOCS - System Applications 'datadir' parameter |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2026-03-23 22:27:31 | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |