Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData()

From: luis(dot)roberto(at)siscobra(dot)com(dot)br
To: AJG <ayden(at)gera(dot)co(dot)nz>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData()
Date: 2021-03-01 12:49:47
Message-ID: 486489735.28495535.1614602987743.JavaMail.zimbra@siscobra.com.br
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


----- Mensagem original -----
> De: "AJG" <ayden(at)gera(dot)co(dot)nz>
> Para: "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Enviadas: Sábado, 27 de fevereiro de 2021 14:40:58
> Assunto: Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData()

> Hi,

> Greatly appreciate if you could please reply to the following questions as
> time allows.

> I have seen previous discussion/patches on a built-in connection pooler. How
> does this scalability improvement, particularly idle connection improvements
> etc, affect that built-in pooler need, if any?

> Same general question about an external connection pooler in general in
> Production? Still required to route to different servers but no longer
> needed for the pooling part. as an example.

> Many Thanks!

> --
> Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html

As I understand it, the improvements made to GetSnapShotData() mean having higher connection count does not incur as much a penalty to performance as before.
I am not sure it solves the connection stablishment side of things, but I may be wrong.

Luis R. Weck

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paul Förster 2021-03-01 13:32:47 Re: proposal: psql –help reflecting service or URI usage
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2021-03-01 12:06:55 Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods