On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 01:53:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@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.
