Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Date
Msg-id 449AFB5F.4020807@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (PFC <lists@peufeu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

PFC wrote:

>
>> What you seem not to grasp at this point is a large web-farm, about 
>> 10 or
>> more servers running PHP, Java, ASP, or even perl. The database is  
>> usually
>> the most convenient and, aside from the particular issue we are talking
>> about, best suited.
>
>
>     The answer is sticky sessions : each user is assigned to one and 
> only one  webserver in the cluster and his session is maintained 
> locally, in RAM. No  locks, no need to manage distributed session...


Sticky sessions can cause enormous problems. I have just worked on a 
site whose problems largely come back to having to use a load balancer 
in front of an app server farm that required sticky sessions.

They are not a solution, they are a disease.

cheers

andrew





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Mark Woodward"
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Next
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Date:
Subject: Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2