Re: Connection pooling.

From: Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>
To: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: Connection pooling.
Date: 2000-07-12 05:22:39
Message-ID: 20000711222239.X25571@fw.wintelcom.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> [000711 20:53] wrote:
>
> Seems a lot trickier than you think. A backend can only be running
> one transaction at a time, so you'd have to keep track of which backends
> are in the middle of a transaction. I can imagine race conditions here.
> And backends can have contexts that are set by various clients using
> SET and friends. Then you'd have to worry about authentication each
> time. And you'd have to have algorithms for cleaning up old processes
> and/or dead processes. It all really sounds a bit hard.

The backends can simply inform the postmaster when they are ready
either because they are done with a connection or because they
have just closed a transaction.

All the state (auth/temp tables) can be held in the system tables.

It's complicated, but no where on the order of something like
a new storage manager.

-Alfred

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2000-07-12 05:33:12 Re: Performance problem in aset.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-07-12 05:21:00 Re: Performance problem in aset.c