RE: Built-in connection pooling

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Konstantin Knizhnik' <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Built-in connection pooling
Date: 2018-04-19 04:46:21
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F9449B6@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Konstantin Knizhnik [mailto:k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru]
Oracle, for example, you can create dedicated and non-dedicated backends.
> I wonder why we do not want to have something similar in Postgres.

Yes, I want it, too. In addition to dedicated and shared server processes, Oracle provides Database Resident Connection Pooling (DRCP). I guessed you were inspired by this.

https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28310/manproc002.htm#ADMIN12348

BTW, you are doing various great work -- autoprepare, multithreaded Postgres, built-in connection pooling, etc. etc., aren't you? Are you doing all of these alone?

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-04-19 04:47:20 Re: Truncation failure in autovacuum results in data corruption (duplicate keys)
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-04-19 04:32:54 Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?