From: | Alexey Kondratov <a(dot)kondratov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw connection caching - cause remote sessions linger till the local session exit |
Date: | 2020-11-25 10:04:01 |
Message-ID: | 6e6aa41c9cdde9d4e5572385e108d68e@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-11-25 06:17, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 7:24 AM Craig Ringer
> <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> A quick thought here.
>>
>> Would it make sense to add a hook in the DISCARD ALL implementation
>> that postgres_fdw can register for?
>>
>> There's precedent here, since DISCARD ALL already has the same effect
>> as SELECT pg_advisory_unlock_all(); amongst other things.
>>
>
> IIUC, then it is like a core(server) function doing some work for the
> postgres_fdw module. Earlier in the discussion, one point raised was
> that it's better not to have core handling something related to
> postgres_fdw. This is the reason we have come up with postgres_fdw
> specific function and a GUC, which get defined when extension is
> created. Similarly, dblink also has it's own bunch of functions one
> among them is dblink_disconnect().
>
If I have got Craig correctly, he proposed that we already have a
DISCARD ALL statement, which is processed by DiscardAll(), and it
releases internal resources known from the core perspective. That way,
we can introduce a general purpose hook DiscardAll_hook(), so
postgres_fdw can get use of it to clean up its own resources
(connections in our context) if needed. In other words, it is not like a
core function doing some work for the postgres_fdw module, but rather
like a callback/hook, that postgres_fdw is able to register to do some
additional work.
It can be a good replacement for 0001, but won't it be already an
overkill to drop all local caches along with remote connections? I mean,
that it would be a nice to have hook from the extensibility perspective,
but postgres_fdw_disconnect() still makes sense, since it does a very
narrow and specific job.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 方徳輝 | 2020-11-25 10:10:13 | Re: Is postgres ready for 2038? |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-11-25 09:59:25 | Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module |