From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Built-in connection pooling |
Date: | 2018-04-19 22:58:00 |
Message-ID: | 20180420.075800.2303060526971299155.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think there's plenty things that don't really make sense solving
> outside of postgres:
> - additional added hop / context switches due to external pooler
This is only applied to external process type pooler (like Pgpool-II).
> - temporary tables
> - prepared statements
> - GUCs and other session state
These are only applied to "non session based" pooler; sharing a
database connection with multiple client connections. "Session based"
connection pooler like Pgpool-II does not have the shortcomings.
One thing either built-in or application library type pooler (like
JDBC) cannot do is, handle multiple PostgreSQL servers.
> I think there's at least one thing that we should attempt to make
> easier for external pooler:
> - proxy authorization
Yeah. Since SCRAM auth is implemented, some connection poolers
including Pgpool-II are struggling to adopt it.
Another thing PostgreSQL can do to make external pooler's life easier
is, enhancing frontend/backend protocol so that reply messages of
prepare etc. include portal/statement info. But apparently this needs
protocol changes.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-04-19 23:33:50 | Re: Double-writes, take two? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-19 22:28:01 | Re: Double-writes, take two? |