Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Date: 2003-04-13 15:25:54
Message-ID: 3E998182.F06AF82D@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paesold wrote:
> I see there is a whole TODO Chapter devoted to the topic. There is the idea
> of pre-forked and persistent backends. That would be very useful in an
> environment where it's quite hard to use connection pooling. We are
> currently working on a mail system for a free webmail. The mda (mail
> delivery agent) written in C connects to the pg database to do some queries
> everytime a new mail comes in. I didn't find a solution for connection
> pooling yet.

I am still playing with the model of reusing connections in a
transparent fashion with a pool manager that uses SCM_RIGHTS messages
over UNIX domain socketpairs. I will scribble down some concept anytime
soon. This will include some more advantages than pure startup cost
reduction, okay?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-13 15:45:58 Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2003-04-13 15:16:55 Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?