Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers
Date
Msg-id Z4Vuj4Q-Otw0JqK0@nathan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions
Next
From: Alexander Lakhin
Date:
Subject: Re: InitControlFile misbehaving on graviton