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
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 |