| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <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: | 2018-04-18 13:09:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YFponiat0e6LAh52JsGpgwec4OKXASK7aXGpDSs555Srw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 April 2018 at 19:52, Konstantin Knizhnik
<k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> As far as I know most of DBMSes have some kind of internal connection
> pooling.
> Oracle, for example, you can create dedicated and non-dedicated backends.
> I wonder why we do not want to have something similar in Postgres.
I want to, and I know many others to.
But the entire PostgreSQL architecture makes it hard to do well, and
means it requires heavy changes to do it in a way that will be
maintainable and reliable.
Making it work, and making something maintainble and mergeable, are
two different things. Something I continue to struggle with myself.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2018-04-18 13:24:52 | Re: Built-in connection pooling |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-04-18 12:55:28 | Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions |