Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?