Re: Built-in connection pooler - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Konstantin Knizhnik
Subject Re: Built-in connection pooler
Date
Msg-id da9d967a-e5ef-1966-6f75-71d0e3bb7f4d@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Built-in connection pooler  (Ryan Lambert <ryan@rustprooflabs.com>)
Responses Re: Built-in connection pooler  (Ryan Lambert <ryan@rustprooflabs.com>)
Re: Built-in connection pooler  (Ryan Lambert <ryan@rustprooflabs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi, Ryan

On 18.07.2019 6:01, Ryan Lambert wrote:
Hi Konstantin,

Thanks for your work on this.  I'll try to do more testing in the next few days, here's what I have so far.

make installcheck-world: passed

The v8 patch [1] applies, though I get indent and whitespace errors:

<stdin>:79: tab in indent.
                 "Each proxy launches its own subset of backends. So maximal number of non-tainted backends is "
<stdin>:80: tab in indent.
                  "session_pool_size*connection_proxies*databases*roles.
<stdin>:519: indent with spaces.
    char buf[CMSG_SPACE(sizeof(sock))];
<stdin>:520: indent with spaces.
    memset(buf, '\0', sizeof(buf));
<stdin>:522: indent with spaces.
    /* On Mac OS X, the struct iovec is needed, even if it points to minimal data */
warning: squelched 82 whitespace errors
warning: 87 lines add whitespace errors.


In connpool.sgml:

"but it can be changed to standard Postgres 4321"

Should be 5432?

" As far as pooled backends are not terminated on client exist, it will not
    be possible to drop database to which them are connected."

Active discussion in [2] might change that, it is also in this July commitfest [3].

"Unlike pgbouncer and other external connection poolera"

Should be "poolers"

"So developers of client applications still have a choice
    either to avoid using session-specific operations either not to use pooling."

That sentence isn't smooth for me to read.  Maybe something like:
"Developers of client applications have the choice to either avoid using session-specific operations, or not use built-in pooling."

Thank you for review.
I have fixed all reported issues except one related with "dropdb --force" discussion.
As far as this patch is not yet committed, I can not rely on it yet.
Certainly I can just remove this sentence from documentation,  assuming that this patch will be committed soon.
But then some extra efforts will be needed to terminated pooler backends of dropped database.



Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs
Next
From: Jesper Pedersen
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_receivewal documentation