From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | 邱宇航(烛远) <yuhang(dot)qyh(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Attach to shared memory after fork() |
Date: | 2021-04-27 13:51:25 |
Message-ID: | 2616865.1619531485@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"=?UTF-8?B?6YKx5a6H6IiqKOeDm+i/nCk=?=" <yuhang(dot)qyh(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> writes:
> Fork is an expensive operation[1].
Yeah, it's not hugely cheap.
> So I propose to remove shared buffers from postmaster and shmat them
> after fork.
This proposal seems moderately insane. In the first place, it
introduces failure modes we could do without, and in the second place,
how is it not strictly *more* expensive than what happens now? You
still have to end up with all those TLB entries mapped in the child.
(If your kernel is unable to pass down shared-memory TLBs effectively,
ISTM that's a kernel shortcoming not a Postgres architectural problem.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-04-27 13:53:32 | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-04-27 13:43:07 | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |