Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Date: 2013-11-20 16:38:42
Message-ID: 20131120163842.GD18801@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-11-20 17:19:42 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > That just pushes the problem up a level --- how are you going to tell
> > psql, pg_dump, or other programs that they should do that?
>
> An explicit parameter. A program imo explicitly needs to be aware that a
> PQconnect() suddenly starts forking and such. What if it is using
> threads? What if it has it's own SIGCHLD handler for other business it's
> doing?

Just as an example, consider what happens if somebody does pg_dump -j?
Or somebody specifies such a connection for primary_conninfo?

I am also not sure whether vacuumdb -a/reindexdb -a (both not unlikely
commands to use for single user mode) are careful enough not to have
parallel connections open?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nigel Heron 2013-11-20 16:39:52 Re: review: autovacuum_work_mem
Previous Message David Johnston 2013-11-20 16:37:38 Re: additional json functionality