On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 07:34:51AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 15:39, Álvaro Hernández <a...@ongres.com> wrote: > > > On 19/2/21 19:30, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > I also am not sure if building a connection pool into a > > > background worker or postmaster is a good idea to begin with. > > > One of the important features of a pool is to be able to suspend > > > traffic and make the server completely idle to for example be > > > able to restart the postmaster without forcibly disconnecting > > > all clients. A pool built into a background worker cannot do > > > that. > > Yes, when did it become a good idea to put a connection pooler in > the backend???
It became a great idea when we noticed just how large and resource-intensive backends were, especially in light of applications' broad tendency to assume that they're free. While I agree that that's not a good assumption, it's one that's so common everywhere in computing that we really need to face up to the fact that it's not going away any time soon. Decoupling the parts that serve requests from the parts that execute queries also goes a long way toward things we've wanted for quite awhile like admission control systems and/or seamless zero-downtime upgrades. Separately, as the folks at AWS and elsewhere have mentioned, being able to pretend at some level to be a different RDBMS can only happen if we respond to its wire protocol. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
