On 2010-06-25 22:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
>
>> Heck, I think an even *more* trivial admission control policy which
>> limits the number of active database transactions released to
>> execution might solve a lot of problems.
>>
> That wouldn't have any benefit over what you can already do with a
> connection pooler, though, I think. In fact, it would probably be
> strictly worse, since enlarging the number of backends slows the
> system down even if they aren't actually doing anything much.
>
Sorry if I'm asking silly questions, but how does transactions and
connection pooler's interact?
Say if you have 100 clients all doing "fairly inactive" database work
in transactions lasting a couple of minutes at the same time. If I
understand
connection poolers they dont help much in those situations where an
"accounting" system on "limited resources" across all backends
definately would help.
(yes, its a real-world application here, wether it is clever or not... )
In a fully web environment where all transaction last 0.1s .. a pooler
might make fully sense (when traffic goes up).
--
Jesper
