Comment by ezekiel68
1 month ago
> The cancel lands on a process that has never heard of the query, and nothing happens.
> Peering fixes this. The processes are aware of one another, so a cancel that lands on the wrong process is forwarded to the one that actually owns the session.
I understand "peering" as a concept here but have never tried this with PostgreSQL before. May I ask:
A) Does PostgreSQL have a mode/setting for peering that makes this easy? I'm imagining a mechanism that either goes round robin (re-sending the cancel to peers until it doesn't return an error of some kind) or some metadata in the cancel request that enables the wrong-destination process to somehow identify the proper process.
B) And by what mechanism? If all the PostgreSQL processes are listening to clients via so_reuseport, I guess there must be some other IPC method used for the peering chatter.
AI clearly wrote TFA. The cancellation thing is apparently a PgBouncer feature - the peering is between bouncer processes, not server processes. It sounds like it should be easy enough to make the bouncer process ID part of the cancel key.
you encode information in the token, this was a motivation for postgres to remove 32 byte cap on tokens: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/508d0505-8b7a-4864-a68...
See from slide 26 https://www.pgevents.ca/events/pgconfdev2024/sessions/sessio... Jelte's a pgbouncer maintainer, video of a talk on this by him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-nCHcZ6vQU
Thanks for this!