Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> There's a couple solutions I can think of to that problem:
> 1) Use epoll()/kqueue, or other similar interfaces that don't require
> re-registering fds at every invocation. My guess is that that'd be
> desirable for performance anyway.
Portability, on the other hand, would be problematic.
> 2) Create a pair of fds between postmaster/backend for each
> backend. While obviously increasing the the number of FDs noticeably,
> it's interesting for other features as well: If we ever want to do FD
> passing from postmaster to existing backends, we're going to need
> that anyway.
Maybe; it'd provide another limit on how many backends we could run.
> 3) Replace the postmaster_alive_fds socketpair by some other signalling
> mechanism. E.g. sending a procsignal to each backend, which sets the
> latch and a special flag in the latch structure.
And what would send the signal? The entire point here is to notice the
situation where the postmaster has crashed. It can *not* depend on the
postmaster taking some action.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
