Re: Built-in connection pooling

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?