On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 01:53:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > In this proof of concept, the > > postmaster does not close its copy of a backend socket until the backend > > exits. > > That seems unworkable because it would interfere with detection of client > connection drops. But since you say this is just a POC, maybe you > intended to fix that? It'd probably be all right for the postmaster to > hold onto the socket until the new backend reports successful attach, > using the same signaling mechanism you had in mind for the other way.
It wasn't relevant to the concept being proven, so I suspended decisions in that area. Arranging for socket closure is a simple matter of programming. > Overall, I agree that neither of these approaches are exactly attractive. > We're paying a heck of a lot of performance or complexity to solve a > problem that shouldn't even be there, and that we don't understand well. > In particular, the theory that some privileged code is injecting a thread > into every new process doesn't square with my results at > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15345.1525145612%40sss.pgh.pa.us > > I think our best course of action at this point is to do nothing until > we have a clearer understanding of what's actually happening on dory. > Perhaps such understanding will yield an idea for a less painful fix. I see.