On 06/25/2015 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> On 06/25/2015 08:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I can't see doing a release just for this. If we were due for releases >>> anyway, sure, but we've considerably overstressed our poor packagers of >>> late. Previous discussion was to the effect that we'd anticipate another >>> set of releases in a month or so, after some more multixact fixes have >>> landed. > >> FWIW, I know users who will not update because of this regression. >> Consider applications which regularly need to spin up 200 new >> connections in 90 seconds due to usage peaks. > > TBH, if your app is critically dependent on backend startup time, > You're Doing It Wrong, because that means you're pissing away significant > performance by not using a connection pooler. So I don't have a huge > amount of sympathy.
Most of these apps are using a connection pooler. But usage is very spiky, and one doesn't want to keep around 300 idle connections all the time for the 5 minutes when you need them. Indeed, pgbouncer is configured to spin down idle connections after a configured amount of time idle, as are most connection poolers. Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea to release again sooner than planned. It is a good reason to look at making connection creation time a regular test, though; you can be sure I'll be testing 9.4.5 and 9.5a! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
