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: 2025-01-13 19:50:39
Message-ID: Z4Vuj4Q-Otw0JqK0@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:09:35AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 03:56:00PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> 0001 patch is unchanged, 0002 patch sketches out a response to the
>> observation a couple of paragraphs above.
>
> Both of these patches seem to improve matters quite a bit. I haven't yet
> thought too deeply about it all, but upon a skim, your patches seem
> entirely reasonable to me.

I gave these a closer look, and I still feel that they are both
straightforward and reasonable. IIUC the main open question is whether
this might cause problems for other PM signal kinds. Like you, I don't see
anything immediately obvious there, but I'll admit I'm not terribly
familiar with the precise characteristics of postmaster signals. In any
case, 0001 feels pretty safe to me.

> However, while this makes the test numbers for >= v16 look more like those
> for v15, we're also seeing a big jump from v13 to v14. This bisects pretty
> cleanly to commit d872510. I haven't figured out _why_ this commit is
> impacting this particular test, but I figured I'd at least update the
> thread with what we know so far.

I regrettably have no updates on this one, yet.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2025-01-13 19:57:02 Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2025-01-13 19:23:33 Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions