Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16
Date
Msg-id 535C1426.9010509@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 04/26/2014 11:06 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> I know we allow for gigantic numbers of backend connections, but I've
> never found a win for >2x the number of cores in the box, which at
> least in my experience so far tops out in the 8-bit (in extreme cases
> unsigned 8-bit) range.

For my part, I've found that anything over a few hundred backends on a
commodity server leads to serious performance degradation.  Even 2000 is
enough to make most servers fall over.  And with proper connection
pooling, I can pump 30,000 queries per second through about 45
connections, so the clear path to supporting large numbers of
connections is some form of built-in pooling.

However, I agree with Tom that Andres should "show his hand" before we
decrease MAX_BACKENDS by 256X.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: UUIDs in core WAS: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16