On Wednesday 01 December 2010 15:20:32 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 11/28/10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> To some degree we're a
> >> victim of our own flexible and extensible architecture here, but I
> >> find it pretty unsatisfying to just say, OK, well, we're slow.
> > What about "well OK, we have PGbouncer"? Are there fixable
> > short-comings that it has which could make the issue less of an issue?
> We do have pgbouncer, and pgpool-II, and that's a good thing. But it
> also requires proxying every interaction with the database through an
> intermediate piece of software, which is not free. An in-core
> solution ought to be able to arrange for each new connection to be
> directly attached to an existing backend, using file-descriptor
> passing. Tom has previously complained that this isn't portable, but
> a little research suggests that it is supported on at least Linux, Mac
> OS X, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, and Windows, so in practice the
> percentage of our user base who could benefit seems like it would
> likely be very high.
HPUX and AIX allow fd transfer as well. I still don't see what even remotely
relevant platform would be a problem.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-12-01 14:27:21|
|Subject: Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-12-01 14:20:32|
|Subject: Re: profiling connection overhead|