Re: Any better plan for this query?..

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, 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 20:24:41
Message-ID: 1242159881.3843.313.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 15:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > 1. There is no (portable) way to pass the connection from the postmaster
> > to another pre-existing process.
>
> [Googles.] It's not obvious to me that SCM_RIGHTS is non-portable,
> and Windows has an API call WSADuplicateSocket() specifically for this
> purpose.

Robert, Greg,

Tom's main point is it isn't worth doing. We have connection pooling
software that works well, very well. Why do we want to bring it into
core? (Think of the bugs we'd hit...) If we did, who would care?

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-05-12 20:37:46 Re: Any better plan for this query?..
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-05-12 19:52:57 Re: Any better plan for this query?..