From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
Date: | 2003-04-13 04:00:22 |
Message-ID: | 3E98E0D6.4020900@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
>So for example, I wonder how fast postgres would be if there were a thousand
>connections open, all doing fast one-record index lookups as fast as they can.
>
Yes - some form of "connection reducing" middleare is probably needed at
that point ( unless you have fairly highly spec'ed hardware )
>People are going to say that would just be a poorly designed system, but I
>think they're just not applying much foresight. Reasonably designed systems
>easily need several hundred connections now, and future large systems will
>undoubtedly need thousands.
>
>
I guess the question could be reduced to : whether some form of TP
Monitor functionality should be built into Postgresql? This *might* be a
better approach - as there may be a limit to how much faster a Pg
connection can get. By way of interest I notice that DB2 8.1 has a
connection concentrator in it - probably for the very reason that we
have been discussing...
Maybe there should be a TODO list item in the Pg "Exotic Features" for
connection pooling / concentrating ???
What do people think ?
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-04-13 04:17:10 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-13 01:09:23 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |