Re: Built-in connection pooling

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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 14:27:14
Message-ID: CADK3HHKwifEd5fuVgOgxpheprKvju5QuGPZArhxuuxAsVecTEg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 9:24 AM Konstantin Knizhnik, <
k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:

>
>
> On 19.04.2018 07:46, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > 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
>
> It seems to be that my connection pooling is more close to DRCP than to
> shared servers.
> It is not clear from this article what this 35KB per client connection
> are used for...
> It seems to be some thing similar with session context used to
> suspend/resume session.
> In my prototype I also maintain some per-session context to keep values
> of session specific GUCs, temporary namespace, ...
> Definitely pooled session memory footprint depends on size of catalog,
> prepared statements, updated GUCs,... but 10-100kb seems to be a
> reasonable estimation.
>
>
> >
> > 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?
> Yes, but there is huge distance from prototype till product-ready
> solution. And definitely I need some help here. This is why I have to
> suspend future development of multithreaded version of Postgres (looks
> like it is not considered as some realistic project by community).
> But with builtin connection pooling situation is better and I am going
> to tests it with some our clients which are interested in this feature.
>
>
> Konstantin

It would be useful to test with the JDBC driver

We run into issues with many pool implementations due to our opinionated
nature

Thanks

Dave

> --
> Konstantin Knizhnik
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-19 15:05:31 Re: pruning disabled for array, enum, record, range type partition keys
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-04-19 14:16:09 Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms