| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 19:52:57 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070905121252x1e131775rff38828644a359f3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 1. There is no (portable) way to pass the connection from the postmaster
> to another pre-existing process.
[Googles.] It's not obvious to me that SCM_RIGHTS is non-portable,
and Windows has an API call WSADuplicateSocket() specifically for this
purpose.
> 2. You'd have to track which database, and probably which user, each
> such backend had been launched for; reconnecting a backend to a new
> database is probably impractical and would certainly invalidate all
> the caching.
User doesn't seem like a major problem, but I understand your point
about databases, which would presumably preclude the Apache approach
of having every backend call accept() on the master socket.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-12 20:24:41 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-05-12 19:15:52 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |