On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Samuel Gendler <sgendler@ideasculptor.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer
> > <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote:
> >> If you're not using a connection pool, start using one.
>
> > I see this issue and subsequent advice cross this list awfully
> > frequently. Is there in architectural reason why postgres itself
> > cannot pool incoming connections in order to eliminate the requirement
> > for an external pool?
>
> Perhaps not, but there's no obvious benefit either. Since there's
> More Than One Way To Do It, it seems more practical to keep that as a
> separate problem that can be solved by a choice of add-on packages.
This sounds similar to the approach to taken with Replication for years
before being moved into core.
Just like replication, pooling has different approaches. I do think
that in both cases, having a solution that works, easily, out of the
"box" will meet the needs of most users.
There is also the issue of perception/adoption here as well. One of my
colleagues mentioned that at PG East that he repeatedly heard people
talking (negatively) about the over reliance on add-on packages to deal
with core DB functionality.
--
Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
