| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-12 16:49:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20444.1242146977@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> AIUI, whenever the connection pooler switches to serving a new client,
> it tells the PG backend to DISCARD ALL. But why couldn't we just
> implement this same logic internally? IOW, when a client disconnects,
> instead of having the backend exit immediately, have it perform the
> equivalent of DISCARD ALL and then stick around for a minute or two
> and, if a new connection request arrives within that time, have the
> old backend handle the new connection...
See previous discussions. IIRC, there are two killer points:
1. There is no (portable) way to pass the connection from the postmaster
to another pre-existing process.
2. You'd have to track which database, and probably which user, each
such backend had been launched for; reconnecting a backend to a new
database is probably impractical and would certainly invalidate all
the caching.
Overall it looked like way too much effort for way too little gain.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri | 2009-05-12 17:00:26 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-12 16:32:05 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |