From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, ivan babrou <ibobrik(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Millisecond-precision connect_timeout for libpq |
Date: | 2013-07-05 20:24:58 |
Message-ID: | 26529.1373055898@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/5/2013 1:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> This is one of the reasons why we've discussed having a kind of
>> stripped-down version of pgbouncer built into Postgres as a connection
>> manager. If it weren't valuable to be able to relocate pgbouncer to
>> other hosts, I'd still say that was a good idea.
> No kidding. I think a lot of -hackers forget that the web rules here and
> the web is stateless, which means a huge performance loss for postgresql
> unless we add yet another piece of software. Pre-forking here would
> really help us.
Pre-forking, per se, wouldn't be that much help IMO. You really want to
connect to a backend that's already loaded its catalog caches etc. So a
connection pooler is the right solution, not least because you can get
it today. Whether we should integrate a pooler into core is more of a
project management issue than a technical one, I think.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2013-07-05 20:27:09 | Proposal: template-ify (binary) extensions |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-07-05 20:20:19 | Re: Review: query result history in psql |