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
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 |