| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-12 19:15:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0905121215s19548b7am24cd25b760c648e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> See previous discussions. IIRC, there are two killer points:
>
> 1. There is no (portable) way to pass the connection from the postmaster
> to another pre-existing process.
The Apache model is to have all the backends call accept. So incoming
connections don't get handled by a single master process, they get
handled by whichever process the kernel picks to receive the
connection.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-12 19:52:57 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-12 18:47:21 | AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem |