Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Interesting idea. As far as I can see, you are suggesting
>>> solving the too many connections problem by allowing lots of
>>> connections, but only allowing a certain number to do anything
>>> at a time?
>>
>> Right.
>
> I think in some situations, this arrangement would be an
> advantage. However, I do not think it will suit the majority of
> situations, and could reduce the performance when the user doesn't
> need the functionality, either because they have a pool already,
> or they don't have many connections.
Oh, totally agreed, except that I think we can have essentially nil
impact if they don't exceed a configured limit. In my experience,
pooling is more effective the closer you put it to the client. I
suppose the strongest argument that could be made against building
in some sort of pooling is that it doesn't encourage people to look
for client-side solutions. However, we seem to get a lot of posts
from people who don't do this, are not able to easily manage it, and
who would benefit from even a simple solution like this.
-Kevin