Re: Are we still interested in the master-slave scan patch

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Are we still interested in the master-slave scan patch
Date: 2006-06-15 06:15:32
Message-ID: e6qtuk$241e$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote
> > The other is the connection pool architecture: shall we let
> > postmaster manage the slaves or let another process say slave-master to
> > handle them? Currently I am choosing the latter.
>
> Hmmm. Why not the postmaster?
>

Not real reason just feel that's clearer (but indeed it caused some
trouble). I am thinking maybe we should make a server-side connection pool
patch as a first step (which was discussed long time ago but no conclusion
yet). In this way, we will be able to reduce the connection time and make a
basis for parallel execution.

Regards,
Qingqing

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2006-06-15 08:00:27 Re: Test request for Stats collector performance improvement
Previous Message Qingqing Zhou 2006-06-15 06:09:43 Re: Test request for Stats collector performance improvement