On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > How hard would it be to pre-fork an extra backend > > > > How are you going to pass the connection socket to an already-forked > > child process? AFAIK there's no remotely portable way ... > > Umm... Apache? They use a preforking model and it works quite well for > every *NIX that Apache runs on. ;) Maybe RSE can comment on this > further... -sc
It works very good for what Apache requires. Namely, to have a queue of processes ready to serve pages. Its not that simple with PostgreSQL - as the discussion so far has drawn out - since there is no simple way to guarantee that the 'right' child gets the socket. The reason why there needs to be a 'right' child is that a socket needs to be passed to a child which has started up for a given database. Otherwise, there's no benefit. This aside, isn't it possible to just copy the socket and some data about the database required into shared memory and have the preforked children pick the socket up from there. Combined with a framework which tests that there are still idle pre-forked children waiting for this database and some configuration options to allow users to specify a number of waiting backends for a given database, and this would work pretty well. Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
