From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:00:19 -0600
Message-ID: <Z1tc87_2lsiFwL-l@nathan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKGLnaskegyFs8mJu62aa81cPPCkq_Bwf46hge_9Q7=J8TQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Z1n5UpAiGDmFcMmd@nathan>
<CA+hUKGLOcxUa6m7UinPN1gZXFyr92L8btG_pGTHPiWY2YbRw2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+hUKGLnaskegyFs8mJu62aa81cPPCkq_Bwf46hge_9Q7=J8TQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 02:29:53AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here's an experimental patch to try changing that policy. It improves
> the connection times on my small computer with your test, but I doubt
> I'm seeing the real issue. But in theory, assuming a backlog of
> connections and workers to start, I think each server loop should be
> able to accept and fork one client backend, and fork up to 100
> (MAX_BGWORKERS_TO_LAUNCH) background workers.
Thanks for the quick response! I'm taking a look at the patch...
--
nathan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers
In-Reply-To: <Z1tc87_2lsiFwL-l@nathan>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox