| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PROXY protocol support |
| Date: | 2021-03-05 08:59:46 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEzdTVGAqw6ZOQb=k83crTLtsOewBiW_q3g1MkL9LztucA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:57 AM Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The current proposal seems to miss the case of transaction pooling
> (and statement pooling) where the same established connection
> multiplexes transactions / statements from multiple remote clients.
Not at all.
The current proposal is there to implement the PROXY protocol. It
doesn't try to do anything with connection pooling at all.
Solving a similar problem for connection poolers would also definitely
be a useful thing, but it is entirely out of scope of this patch, and
is a completely separate implementation.
I'd definitely like to see that one solved as well, but let's look at
it on a different thread so we don't derail this one.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-03-05 09:03:46 | Re: PROXY protocol support |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-03-05 08:48:45 | Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails |