On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:48:03PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> max_connections is a frequent point of contention between users and
> developers. Users want to set it high so they don't have to deal with Yet
> More Software (pgpool or pgBouncer); PG developers freak out because
> backends are pretty heavyweight, there's some very hot code that's sensitive
> to the size of ProcArray, lock contention, etc.
> One solution to this would be to segregate connection handling from actual
> backends, somewhere along the lines of separating the main loop from the
> switch() that handles libpq commands. Benefits:

[interesting stuff elided]

What do you see as the relationship between this proposal and the
earlier one for admission control?


David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to