You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I'm integrating Puma with gRPC and have encountered a thread consistency validation that occurs during prefork and postfork phases. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this validation. I conducted load testing without this validation, and the application seemed to perform well.
This relates to the discussion in this thread: #8798 (comment).
Describe the solution you'd like
If removing this validation does not pose an operational risk, I propose eliminating it to ensure compatibility with Puma.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Another approach would be to ensure that Puma forks using the same thread to satisfy the validation. However, the necessity of this thread check for fork safety is unclear to me.
Additional context
n/a
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I'm integrating Puma with gRPC and have encountered a thread consistency validation that occurs during prefork and postfork phases. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this validation. I conducted load testing without this validation, and the application seemed to perform well.
This relates to the discussion in this thread: #8798 (comment).
Describe the solution you'd like
If removing this validation does not pose an operational risk, I propose eliminating it to ensure compatibility with Puma.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Another approach would be to ensure that Puma forks using the same thread to satisfy the validation. However, the necessity of this thread check for fork safety is unclear to me.
Additional context
n/a
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: