Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

From: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows
Date: 2023-05-16 14:57:09
Message-ID: 3c0701d9-9758-b8d9-5e01-abc784b7c086@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/31/23 11:00 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:

>>> I mention this now because I'm not sure whether to consider this an
>>> 'open item' for 16, or merely an enhancement for 17. I guess the
>>> former, because someone might call that a new denial of service
>>> vector. On the other hand, if you fill up the listen queue for socket
>>> 1 with enough vigour, you're also denying service to socket 1, so I
>>> don't know if it's worth worrying about. Opinions on that?
>>
>> I'm not sure either. It doesn't strike me as a particularly relevant
>> bottleneck. And the old approach of doing more work for every single
>> connection also made many connections worse, I think?
>
> Alright, let's see if anyone else thinks this is worth fixing for 16.

[RMT hat]

Given this has sat for a bit, I wanted to see if any of your thinking
has changed on whether this should be fixed for v16 or v17. I have
personally not formed an opinion yet, but per the current discussion, it
seems like this could wait?

Thanks,

Jonathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Lakhin 2023-05-16 15:00:00 Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16
Previous Message Jonathan S. Katz 2023-05-16 14:30:27 Re: pg_stat_io not tracking smgrwriteback() is confusing