On 2017-06-26 17:38:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2017-06-26 17:30:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, I don't like that at all. Has race conditions against updates > >> coming from the startup process. > > > You'd obviously have to take the appropriate locks. I think the issue > > here is less race conditions, and more that architecturally we'd > > interact with shmem too much. > > Uh, we are *not* taking any locks in the postmaster.
I'm not sure why you're 'Uh'ing, when my my point pretty much is that we do not want to do so? > Hm. Take that a bit further, and we could drop the connection probes > altogether --- just put the whole responsibility on the postmaster to > show in the pidfile whether it's ready for connections or not. Yea, that seems quite appealing, both from an architectural, simplicity, and log noise perspective. I wonder if there's some added reliability by the connection probe though? Essentially wondering if it'd be worthwhile to keep a single connection test at the end. I'm somewhat disinclined though. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers