| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Built-in connection pooling |
| Date: | 2018-04-24 01:47:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaySCD772T4aLHGkXfpRkbtzReDCukKO+ue_mantP7KFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> So, instead of trying to multiplex multiple sessions in a single
> operating system process, why don't we try to reduce the overhead of
> idle sessions that each have an operating system process? We already
> use procArray to reduce the number of _assigned_ PGPROC entries we have
> to scan. Why can't we create another array that only contains _active_
> sessions, i.e. those not in a transaction. In what places can procArray
> scans be changed to use this new array?
There are lots of places where scans would benefit, but the cost of
maintaining the new array would be very high in some workloads, so I
don't think you'd come out ahead overall. Feel free to code it up and
test it, though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-04-24 01:51:28 | Re: Boolean partitions syntax |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-04-24 01:40:16 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |