On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:47:07PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > So, instead of trying to multiplex multiple sessions in a single > > operating system process, why don't we try to reduce the overhead of > > idle sessions that each have an operating system process? We already > > use procArray to reduce the number of _assigned_ PGPROC entries we have > > to scan. Why can't we create another array that only contains _active_ > > sessions, i.e. those not in a transaction. In what places can procArray > > scans be changed to use this new array? > > There are lots of places where scans would benefit, but the cost of > maintaining the new array would be very high in some workloads, so I > don't think you'd come out ahead overall. Feel free to code it up and > test it, though.
Well, it would be nice if we new exactly which scans are slow for a large number of idle sessions, and then we could determine what criteria for that array would be beneficial --- that seems like the easiest place to start. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +