Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobO38XspYqjZ9Bx3T18x5c8C65Dm=gYu9hVzX5Ftnrq2g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I still think that we'd be better off to just return an error to the client in
> postmaster, rather than deal with this dead-end children mess. That was
> perhaps justified at some point, but now it seems to add way more complexity
> than it's worth. And it's absurdly expensive to fork to return an error. Way
> more expensive than just having postmaster send an error and close the socket.

The tricky case is the one where the client write() -- or SSL_write() -- blocks.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CANONICAL option to xmlserialize