> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > How hard would it be to pre-fork an extra backend
> >
> > How are you going to pass the connection socket to an already-forked
> > child process? AFAIK there's no remotely portable way ...
>
> One of the mechanisms I've seen was that the master process
> just does the socket(), bind(), listen(), than forks off and
> the children coordinate via a semaphore that at most one of
> them executes a blocking accept(). I think it was in some
> older apache release.
>
> But in contrast to apache, we currently do most of the
> initialization after we authenticated the user and know what
> database to connect to. I'm not sure how much of the backend
> startup could be done before accepting the connection.
I agree this may not be a big win on most platforms, but for platforms
like Solaris and NT, it could be a big win. Added to TODO:
* Do listen() in postmaster and accept() in pre-forked backend
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026