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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
Date
Msg-id 23350.1058623055@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections  (Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>)
Responses Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections  (Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>)
List pgsql-general
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
> it's very plausible to imagine a world where a backend hands an idle
> connection back to the parent process for safe keeping/process load
> balancing.

And your current database, user authorization, prepared statements,
SET values, cached plpgsql plans, etc etc go where exactly?

The notion that a Postgres session can be replaced by a lightweight
object is just not workable IMHO; we've developed far too many features
that require persistent state on the backend side.

For applications that don't need those features (or, more realistically,
want the same persistent state for all transactions they engage in),
client-side connection pooling solves the problem.  It seems very
unlikely that apps that are too diverse to share a client-side pool
would be able to share a backend session if only the connection
mechanism were a bit different.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gould
Date:
Subject: Re: What about a comp.databases.postgresql usenet
Next
From: Ron Johnson
Date:
Subject: Re: What about a comp.databases.postgresql usenet