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
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 |