| From: | Marco Pfatschbacher <Marco_Pfatschbacher(at)genua(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |
| Date: | 2016-09-16 07:46:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20160916074642.GB15576@genua.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:40:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Very interesting. Perhaps that is why NetBSD shows a speedup with the
> > kqueue patch[1] but FreeBSD doesn't. I guess that if I could get the
> > kqueue patch to perform better on large FreeBSD systems, it would also
> > be a solution to this problem.
>
> I just noticed that kqueue appears to offer a solution to this problem,
> ie one of the things you can wait for is exit of another process (named
> by PID, looks like). If that's portable to all kqueue platforms, then
> integrating a substitute for the postmaster death pipe might push that
> patch over the hump to being a net win.
That sounds plausible.
I could give this a try after I get back from my vacation :)
Marco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marco Pfatschbacher | 2016-09-16 07:55:48 | Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |
| Previous Message | Marco Pfatschbacher | 2016-09-16 07:44:13 | Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |