Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]

dg@illustra.com (David Gould) writes:
> The idea that occurred to me is to have the postmaster
> "pre-spawn" some servers in each (configurable) database. These would run
> all the initialization and then just wait for a socket to be handed to them.
> The postmaster would during idle time replenish the pool of ready servers.

Cool idea ... but how to get the socket passed off from postmaster to
back end, other than through a fork?

I think there is a facility in SYSV messaging to transmit a file
descriptor from one process to another, but that's not going to be a
portable answer.

            regards, tom lane