[pgpool-general: 4000] Re: accept() scalability issues
ishii at postgresql.org
Mon Aug 24 20:54:00 JST 2015
> It’s rather 10AM (see table on the right at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clock <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clock> - US time is confusing) - but yeah, that’s when we switched over to the patched pgpool version.
> I think the semaphore implementation behaves differently. Looking at the return values of semop()  and the relevant chapters from TLPI , it’s suggested that semop() will block all but the winning process, resulting in no wakeups for all other children.
Hmm. I think you are right.
> It might be best not to rely on connection-triggered select() wakeups but rather make semop-calls with timeouts so that the main child loop gets iterated on a regular basis. Alternatively alarm() in combination with a signal handler might be used as well.
Thanks for the suggestion. Let me see how I can implement in other way
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
More information about the pgpool-general