Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers
Date: 2024-12-12 22:00:19
Message-ID: Z1tc87_2lsiFwL-l@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 02:29:53AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here's an experimental patch to try changing that policy. It improves
> the connection times on my small computer with your test, but I doubt
> I'm seeing the real issue. But in theory, assuming a backlog of
> connections and workers to start, I think each server loop should be
> able to accept and fork one client backend, and fork up to 100
> (MAX_BGWORKERS_TO_LAUNCH) background workers.

Thanks for the quick response! I'm taking a look at the patch...

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Harris 2024-12-12 22:13:26 Re: FileFallocate misbehaving on XFS
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2024-12-12 21:49:35 Re: Crash: invalid DSA memory alloc request