| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel <flavio(at)4linux(dot)com(dot)br>, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Date: | 2009-05-29 12:11:10 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10905290511q55c26207x318e2771df7100c3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2009/5/29 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> The PostgreSQL connection handler is known to be bad at handling high
>> connection loads compared to the popular pooling projects, so you really
>> shouldn't throw this problem at it. While kernel problems stack on top of
>> that, you really shouldn't start at kernel fixes; nail the really
>> fundamental and obvious problem first.
>
> if it is implemented somewhere else better, shouldn't that make it
> obvious that postgresql should solve it internally ? It is really
> annoying to hear all the time that you should add additional path of
> execution to already complex stack, and rely on more code to handle
> something (poolers).
OTOH, you're always free to submit a patch.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2009-05-29 12:13:51 | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-29 12:10:44 | Re: Scalability in postgres |