From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Kevin Brown" <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
Date: | 2003-04-12 20:08:40 |
Message-ID: | 01cc01c3012f$526aaf80$3201a8c0@beeblebrox |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway wrote:
> Furthermore, IIRC PostgreSQL's relatively slow connection creation time
> has as much to do with other per-backend initialization work as it does
> with the time to actually fork() a new backend. If there is interest in
> optimizing backend startup time, my guess would be that there is plenty
> of room for improvement without requiring the replacement of processes
> with threads.
I see there is a whole TODO Chapter devoted to the topic. There is the idea
of pre-forked and persistent backends. That would be very useful in an
environment where it's quite hard to use connection pooling. We are
currently working on a mail system for a free webmail. The mda (mail
delivery agent) written in C connects to the pg database to do some queries
everytime a new mail comes in. I didn't find a solution for connection
pooling yet.
About the TODO items, apache has a nice description of their accept()
serialization:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/misc/perf-tuning.html
Perhaps this could be useful if someone decided to start implementing those
features.
Regards,
Michael Paesold
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-04-12 21:27:32 | Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-04-12 19:29:38 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |