| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
| Date: | 2003-04-13 15:25:54 |
| Message-ID: | 3E998182.F06AF82D@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paesold wrote:
> 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.
I am still playing with the model of reusing connections in a
transparent fashion with a pool manager that uses SCM_RIGHTS messages
over UNIX domain socketpairs. I will scribble down some concept anytime
soon. This will include some more advantages than pure startup cost
reduction, okay?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-13 15:45:58 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-04-13 15:16:55 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |