Re: Built-in connection pooling

From: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Built-in connection pooling
Date: 2018-04-18 13:31:01
Message-ID: b76a2af5-a293-9916-6eae-dd339b89cb8e@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 18.04.2018 16:09, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 18 April 2018 at 19:52, Konstantin Knizhnik
> <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know most of DBMSes have some kind of internal connection
>> pooling.
>> Oracle, for example, you can create dedicated and non-dedicated backends.
>> I wonder why we do not want to have something similar in Postgres.
> I want to, and I know many others to.
>
> But the entire PostgreSQL architecture makes it hard to do well, and
> means it requires heavy changes to do it in a way that will be
> maintainable and reliable.
>
> Making it work, and making something maintainble and mergeable, are
> two different things. Something I continue to struggle with myself.
>
Here I completely agree with you.
Now my prototype "works": it is able to correctly handle errors,
transaction rollbacks, long living transactions,... but I am completely
sure that there are a lot of not tested cases when it will work
incorrectly. But still I do not think that making built-in connection
pooling really reliable is something unreachable.

--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2018-04-18 13:36:46 Re: Built-in connection pooling
Previous Message David Fetter 2018-04-18 13:24:52 Re: Built-in connection pooling