Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paesold
Subject Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Date
Msg-id 01cc01c3012f$526aaf80$3201a8c0@beeblebrox
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
List pgsql-hackers
Neil Conway wrote:

> Furthermore, IIRC PostgreSQL's relatively slow connection creation time
> has as much to do with other per-backend initialization work as it does
> with the time to actually fork() a new backend. If there is interest in
> optimizing backend startup time, my guess would be that there is plenty
> of room for improvement without requiring the replacement of processes
> with threads.

I see there is a whole TODO Chapter devoted to the topic. There is the idea
of pre-forked and persistent backends. That would be very useful in an
environment where it's quite hard to use connection pooling. We are
currently working on a mail system for a free webmail. The mda (mail
delivery agent) written in C connects to the pg database to do some queries
everytime a new mail comes in. I didn't find a solution for connection
pooling yet.

About the TODO items, apache has a nice description of their accept()
serialization:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/misc/perf-tuning.html

Perhaps this could be useful if someone decided to start implementing those
features.

Regards,
Michael Paesold



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Next
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2?