Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
Date
Msg-id 18351.1058673380@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections  (Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>)
List pgsql-general
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
> No where, everything remains as is.  I actually think you'll
> appreciate the simplicity of this once I'm done explaining how I'm
> going about this.

I don't think you heard a word I said :-(

You appear to be adding a whole lot of platform dependency (passing
FDs around other than by fork() is not portable) in return for loss
of functionality (applications can't rely on session state anymore)
and highly dubious performance gain (just because a backend has started
does not mean it's built up a reasonable working set of cache entries;
you can't expect that firing off a new backend for every transaction
is going to be anything but a huge performance loss, even if you assume
its visible session state is exactly what the application needs).

Also it sounds to me like the postmaster will now become a performance
bottleneck, since it will need to be involved in every transaction start.

You're welcome to pursue this if you like, but I'll bet lunch that
you are wasting your time.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Peter Galbavy"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL gets $19.5 MM
Next
From: elein
Date:
Subject: Re: Fw: Is SQL silly as an RDBMS<->app interface?