From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Admission Control |
Date: | 2010-06-25 20:44:10 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin5f85G-7jELIK87gfIjW1I_ZobbnQPkooo2T2g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Heck, I think an even *more* trivial admission control policy which
> limits the number of active database transactions released to
> execution might solve a lot of problems.
That wouldn't have any benefit over what you can already do with a
connection pooler, though, I think. In fact, it would probably be
strictly worse, since enlarging the number of backends slows the
system down even if they aren't actually doing anything much.
> Of course, what you
> propose is more useful, although I'd be inclined to think that we'd
> want an admission control layer which could be configured so support
> both of these and much more. Done correctly, it could almost
> completely eliminate the downward slope after you hit the "knee" in
> many performance graphs.
And world peace!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-25 21:07:33 | simplifying emode_for_corrupt_record |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-25 20:42:09 | Re: Admission Control |