Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
Date: 2003-07-19 13:57:35
Message-ID: 23350.1058623055@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
> it's very plausible to imagine a world where a backend hands an idle
> connection back to the parent process for safe keeping/process load
> balancing.

And your current database, user authorization, prepared statements,
SET values, cached plpgsql plans, etc etc go where exactly?

The notion that a Postgres session can be replaced by a lightweight
object is just not workable IMHO; we've developed far too many features
that require persistent state on the backend side.

For applications that don't need those features (or, more realistically,
want the same persistent state for all transactions they engage in),
client-side connection pooling solves the problem. It seems very
unlikely that apps that are too diverse to share a client-side pool
would be able to share a backend session if only the connection
mechanism were a bit different.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-07-19 14:14:10 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Postgresql & AMD x86-64
Previous Message Andrew Gould 2003-07-19 13:31:25 Re: What about a comp.databases.postgresql usenet

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-07-19 14:14:10 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Postgresql & AMD x86-64
Previous Message Hans-Jürgen Schönig 2003-07-19 10:30:31 Re: dblink_ora - a first shot on Oracle ...