On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Kevin Grittner
> Heck, I think an even *more* trivial admission control policy which
> limits the number of active database transactions released to
> execution might solve a lot of problems.
That wouldn't have any benefit over what you can already do with a
connection pooler, though, I think. In fact, it would probably be
strictly worse, since enlarging the number of backends slows the
system down even if they aren't actually doing anything much.
> Of course, what you
> propose is more useful, although I'd be inclined to think that we'd
> want an admission control layer which could be configured so support
> both of these and much more. Done correctly, it could almost
> completely eliminate the downward slope after you hit the "knee" in
> many performance graphs.
And world peace!
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-06-25 21:07:33|
|Subject: simplifying emode_for_corrupt_record|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-06-25 20:42:09|
|Subject: Re: Admission Control|