| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning. |
| Date: | 2010-07-10 18:51:06 |
| Message-ID: | 19244.1278787866@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm also relying on the unsubstantiated assumption that it's
>> possible to pass a socket connection between processes.
> Doesn't pgpool do this?
No, and in fact that's exactly why the proposed implementation isn't
ever going to be in core: it's not possible to do it portably.
(And no, I'm not interested in hearing about how you can do it on
platforms X, Y, and/or Z.)
I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging
and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the
existing solutions, but there is a need for making sure that they are
readily available and people know when to use them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ryan Wexler | 2010-07-11 20:02:50 | Re: performance on new linux box |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-07-10 18:42:11 | Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning. |