Christopher>One of the things that they find likable is that by having the connection
pool live
Christopher>in the framework alongside the application is that this makes it easy to
attach
Christopher>hooks so that the pool can do intelligent things based on application-aware
logic.
I'm afraid I do not follow you. Can you please provide an example?
TL;DR:
1) I think in-application pooling would be required for performance reasons in any case.
2) Out-of-application pooling (in-backend or in-the-middle) is likely needed as well
JDBC clients use client-side connection pooling for performance reasons:
1) Connection setup does have overhead:
1.1) TCP connection takes time to init/close
1.2) Startup queries involve a couple of roundrips: "startup packet", then "SET extra_float_digits = 3", then "SET application_name = '...' "
2) Binary formats on the wire are tied to oids. Clients have to cache the oids somehow, and "cache per connection" is the current approach.
3) Application threads tend to augment "application_name", "search_path", etc for its own purposes, and it would slow the application down significantly if JDBC driver reverted application_name/search_path/etc for each and every "connection borrow".
4) I believe there's non-zero overhead for backend process startup
As Konstantin lists in the initial email, the problem is backend itself does not scale well with lots of backend processes.
In other words: it is fine if PostgreSQL is accessed by a single Java application since the number of connections would be reasonable (limited by the Java connection pool).
That, however, is not the case when the DB is accessed by lots of applications (==lots of idle connections) and/or in case the application is using short-lived connections (==in-app pool is missing that forces backend processes to come and go).
Vladimir
