Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Admission Control

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Admission Control
Date: 2010-06-25 20:44:10
Message-ID: AANLkTin5f85G-7jELIK87gfIjW1I_ZobbnQPkooo2T2g@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Heck, I think an even *more* trivial admission control policy which
> limits the number of active database transactions released to
> execution might solve a lot of problems.

That wouldn't have any benefit over what you can already do with a
connection pooler, though, I think.  In fact, it would probably be
strictly worse, since enlarging the number of backends slows the
system down even if they aren't actually doing anything much.

> Of course, what you
> propose is more useful, although I'd be inclined to think that we'd
> want an admission control layer which could be configured so support
> both of these and much more.  Done correctly, it could almost
> completely eliminate the downward slope after you hit the "knee" in
> many performance graphs.

And world peace!

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-06-25 21:07:33
Subject: simplifying emode_for_corrupt_record
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-06-25 20:42:09
Subject: Re: Admission Control

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group