| From: | james <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres with pthread |
| Date: | 2017-12-27 11:13:04 |
| Message-ID: | 96697853-6356-24fd-6216-df1474905ddc@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27/12/2017 10:08, Andres Freund wrote:
> Optimizing for this seems like a pointless exercise. If the goal is efficient processing of 100k connections the solution is a session / connection abstraction and a scheduler. Optimizing for this amount of concurrency just will add complexity and slowdowns for a workload that nobody will run.
Isn't that what's suggested?
The difference is that the session scheduler is inside the server.
Accepting 100k connections is no problem these days - giving each of
them an active thread seems to be the issue.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2017-12-27 11:17:11 | Re: Postgres with pthread |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-12-27 11:07:35 | Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC] |