Re: Built-in connection pooler

Hi, Ryan

On 18.07.2019 6:01, Ryan Lambert wrote:
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> Thanks for your work on this.  I'll try to do more testing in the next
> few days, here's what I have so far.
>
> make installcheck-world: passed
>
> The v8 patch [1] applies, though I get indent and whitespace errors:
>
>
> <stdin>:79: tab in indent.
>                  "Each proxy launches its own subset of backends.
> So maximal number of non-tainted backends is "
> <stdin>:80: tab in indent.
> "session_pool_size*connection_proxies*databases*roles.
> <stdin>:519: indent with spaces.
>     char buf[CMSG_SPACE(sizeof(sock))];
> <stdin>:520: indent with spaces.
>     memset(buf, '\0', sizeof(buf));
> <stdin>:522: indent with spaces.
>     /* On Mac OS X, the struct iovec is needed, even if it points
> to minimal data */
> warning: squelched 82 whitespace errors
> warning: 87 lines add whitespace errors.
>
>
>
> In connpool.sgml:
>
> "but it can be changed to standard Postgres 4321"
>
> Should be 5432?
>
> " As far as pooled backends are not terminated on client exist, it
> will not
>     be possible to drop database to which them are connected."
>
> Active discussion in [2] might change that, it is also in this July
> commitfest [3].
>
> "Unlike pgbouncer and other external connection poolera"
>
> Should be "poolers"
>
> "So developers of client applications still have a choice
>     either to avoid using session-specific operations either not to
> use pooling."
>
> That sentence isn't smooth for me to read.  Maybe something like:
> "Developers of client applications have the choice to either avoid
> using session-specific operations, or not use built-in pooling."
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/attachment/102610/builtin_connection_proxy-8.patch
>
> [2]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAP_rwwmLJJbn70vLOZFpxGw3XD7nLB_7%2BNKz46H5EOO2k5H7OQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> [3] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/23/2055/

Thank you for review.
I have fixed all reported issues except one related with "dropdb
--force" discussion.
As far as this patch is not yet committed, I can not rely on it yet.
Certainly I can just remove this sentence from documentation, assuming
that this patch will be committed soon.
But then some extra efforts will be needed to terminated pooler backends
of dropped database.