2009/5/29 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>:
> 2009/5/29 Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>:
>
>>> if it is implemented somewhere else better, shouldn't that make it
>>> obvious that postgresql should solve it internally ? It is really
>>> annoying to hear all the time that you should add additional path of
>>> execution to already complex stack, and rely on more code to handle
>>> something (poolers).
>>
>> OTOH, you're always free to submit a patch.
> :P
>
> I thought that's where the difference is between postgresql and oracle
> mostly, ability to handle more transactions and better scalability .
Both Oracle and PostgreSQL have fairly heavy backend processes, and
running hundreds of them on either database is a mistake. Sure,
Oracle can handle more transactions and scales a bit better, but no
one wants to have to buy a 128 way E15K to handle the load rather than
implementing connection pooling. Show me an Oracle server with 5000
live, active connections and I'll show you a VERY large and expensive
cluster of machines.
