public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
To: Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave Cramer <[email protected]>
Cc: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Add GoAway protocol message for graceful but fast server shutdown/switchover
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 20:20:34 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAN4CZFOw2v9G_9vuP0vnNH8K9X_UeSOyq=gWJp7bdGZ5HKNTDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAN4CZFMLpakQb8qohDAnrOoQ1-UrvmzJewZss95Y+Mf_J+iNeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

Hi,

I've looked at this patch today, to check if there's something we could
get done in PG19.

I find it a bit we didn't get much feedback from people working on the
client/downstream stuff - clients, connection poolers/middleware, that
sort of stuff. OK, we did hear from Kiril, and he seems to like it.

I'm not very involved in the protocol stuff, so I'm sure there's a lot
details I'm missing. It'd be very helpful if there was some sort of PoC
support on the pooler/client side, so that I can experiment with it and
see how helpful the new protocol message is. But I realize that's a bit
too much to ask for.

A couple thoughts about this (some of this may be missing what the patch
aims to do).

* Does it make sense to tie this to smart shutdowns? I realize it's just
an example, and it probably makes sense to send the GoAway message
before a shutdown. But isn't this a bit similar to cancel/terminate of a
backend? Why not to have a pg_goaway_backend() function, that'd send the
message to a single backend? It might be useful for load-balancing, if
we could pick a "heavy" backend and ask it to reconnect / move to a
different replica. (Could that be handled by a middleware?)

* In fact, does it improve the smart shutdown case in practice? Let's
say we have a single instance, and we're restarting it. It'll send
GoAway to all the clients, the good clients will try to reconnect. But
if there's even a single "bad" client ignoring the GoAway, all the
well-behaved clients will get stuck. Ofc, that can happen without the
GoAway message too - a client may disconnect because of timeout etc. But
it makes it more likely, and it'll affect the well-behaved clients.

* Would it make sense to have some payload in the GoAway message? I'm
thinking about (a) some deadline by which the client should disconnect,
e.g. time of planned restart / shutdown, (b) priority, expressing how
much the client should try to disconnect (and maybe take more drastic
actions).

Also, two minor comments:

* The sgml docs say the function is defined as

  int PQgoAwayReceived(const PGconn *conn);

but in the .h file it's defined without the "const".

* The new entry in protocol.sgml (in the "Supported Protocol Extensions"
 table) says

  <entry><literal>goaway</literal></entry>

but the following table includes "_pq_" in the entry name. Should the
new entry do the same?


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra

view thread (15+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Add GoAway protocol message for graceful but fast server shutdown/switchover
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox