introduce bugs. If we can get to the point where we have something to
play around with, even if it's kind of kludgey or doesn't quite work,
it'll give us some idea of whether further effort is worthwhile and
how it should be directed.
Should I put this on the TODO list, then, in hopes that
28.07.10 04:56, Tom Lane написав(ла):
I'm not asserting it's true, just suggesting it's entirely possible.
Other than the fork() cost itself and whatever authentication activity
there might be, practically all the startup cost of a new backend can be
seen as cache-populating activities. You'd
On 7/27/10 6:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, if it weren't for that I'd say sure let's try it. But I'm
afraid we'd be introducing significant headaches in return for a gain
that's quite speculative.
Well, the *gain* isn't speculative. For example, I am once again
dealing with the issue that PG
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 7/27/10 6:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, if it weren't for that I'd say sure let's try it. But I'm
afraid we'd be introducing significant headaches in return for a gain
that's quite speculative.
Well, the *gain* isn't
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
However, if we don't support that, we can't do any sort of pooling-ish
thing without the ability to pass file descriptors between processes;
and Tom seems fairly convinced there's no portable way to do that.
Well, what it would come down to is: are we
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:10:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
However, if we don't support that, we can't do any sort of pooling-ish
thing without the ability to pass file descriptors between processes;
and Tom seems fairly convinced there's no portable
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
However, if we don't support that, we can't do any sort of pooling-ish
thing without the ability to pass file descriptors between processes;
and Tom seems fairly convinced there's no
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 09:52 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:56 +0100, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Let's extend this shall we:
Avoid adding yet another network hop
postgreSQL is multi-process, so you either have a separate pooler
process or need to put pooler
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 14:36 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 24/07/10 13:23, Greg Smith wrote:
Joshua Tolley wrote:
Relatively minor, but it would be convenient to avoid having to query
$external_pooler to determine the client_addr of an incoming connection.
You suggest this as a
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
On 24/07/10 01:28, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, if we could change the backends so that they could fully
reinitialize themselves (disconnect from a database to which they are
bound, etc.), I don't see why we couldn't
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
The problem is harder for us because a backend can't switch identities
once it's been assigned to a database. I haven't heard an adequate
explanation of why that couldn't be
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
The problem is harder for us because a backend can't switch identities
once it's been assigned to a database.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Flushing them all is not zero-cost; it's not too hard to believe that
it could actually be slower than forking a clean new backend.
I'm not so sure I believe that.
I'm not asserting
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Flushing them all is not zero-cost; it's not too hard to believe that
it could actually be slower than forking a
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Other than the fork() cost itself and whatever authentication activity
there might be, practically all the startup cost of a new backend can be
seen as cache-populating activities.
On 28/07/10 04:40, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
The problem is harder for us because a backend can't switch identities
once it's been assigned to a database. I haven't heard an adequate
Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au writes:
9.0 has application_name to let apps identify themselves. Perhaps a
pooled_client_ip, to be set by a pooler rather than the app, could be
added to address this problem in a way that can be used by all poolers
new and existing, not just any new
On 24/07/10 01:28, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, if we could change the backends so that they could fully
reinitialize themselves (disconnect from a database to which they are
bound, etc.), I don't see why we couldn't use the Apache approach.
This would offer the bonus on the side that it'd be
On 24/07/10 13:23, Greg Smith wrote:
Joshua Tolley wrote:
Relatively minor, but it would be convenient to avoid having to query
$external_pooler to determine the client_addr of an incoming connection.
You suggest this as a minor concern, but I consider it to be one of the
most
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:44:04PM -0700, Scott Carey wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to ask what can
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:56 +0100, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Let's extend this shall we:
Avoid adding yet another network hop
postgreSQL is multi-process, so you either have a separate pooler
process or need to put pooler functionality in postmaster, bothw ways
you still have a two-hop
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:28:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36
Joshua Tolley wrote:
Relatively minor, but it would be convenient to avoid having to query
$external_pooler to determine the client_addr of an incoming connection.
You suggest this as a minor concern, but I consider it to be one of the
most compelling arguments in favor of in-core pooling.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 01:23:08AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Joshua Tolley wrote:
Relatively minor, but it would be convenient to avoid having to query
$external_pooler to determine the client_addr of an incoming connection.
You suggest this as a minor concern, but I consider it to be one of
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
On 12/07/10 17:45, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
I'm surprised. Doesn't apache httpd do this? Does it have to do a whole
load of non-portable stuff? It seems to work on a whole load of platforms.
A lot of what Apache
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to ask what can an in-core pool do that an external
pool cannot do?
Avoid sending every connection through an extra hop.
--
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to ask what can an in-core pool do that an external
pool cannot do?
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:33:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
On 12/07/10 17:45, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
I'm surprised. Doesn't apache httpd do this? Does it have to do a whole
load of non-portable stuff? It
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to ask what can an in-core pool do that an external
pool cannot do?
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:15 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to ask what
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to ask what can an in-core pool do that an external
pool cannot do?
Avoid
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Craig Ringer
cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
The problem is harder for us because a backend can't switch identities
once it's been assigned to a database. I haven't heard an adequate
explanation of why that couldn't be changed, though.
Possibly it might decrease
Hi,
Sorry, if posting here was not proper instead of starting new thread
(I am really not sure if its bad thing to do)
I would like to share my recent experience on implementation of
client side pooling using pgbouncer. By client side i mean that
the the pgbouncer process in not on same machine
note: my postgresql server pgbouncer were not in virtualised environment
in the first setup. Only application server has many openvz containers.
Nice suggestion to try ,
I will put pgbouncer on raw hardware and run pgbench from same hardware.
regds
rajesh kumar mallah.
Why in VM (openvz container) ?
Did you also try it in the same OS as your appserver ?
Perhaps even connecting from appserver via unix seckets ?
and all my
Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
the no of clients was 10 ( -c 10) carrying out 1 transactions
each (-t 1) .
pgbench db was initilised with scaling factor -s 100.
since client count was less there was no queuing of requests in pgbouncer
i would prefer to say it was in 'passthrough' mode.
ok ,
now the question is , is it possible to dig out from from postgresql
database
server if connection pooling is needed ? In our case eg i have kept
max_connections = 300 if i reduce below 250 i get error max connection
reached.
on connecting to db directly, if i put pgbouncer i get less
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
the no of clients was 10 ( -c 10) carrying out 1 transactions each
(-t 1) .
pgbench db was initilised with scaling factor -s 100.
since client count was less there was no queuing
On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:33 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 10/07/2010 9:25 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
It *is* the last place you want to put it, but putting it there can
be much better than not putting it *anywhere*, which is what we've
often seen.
Well, what you proposed is an admission control
Looks like ,
pgbench cannot be used for testing with pgbouncer if number of
pgbench clients exceeds pool_size + reserve_pool_size of pgbouncer.
pgbench keeps waiting doing nothing. I am using pgbench of postgresql 8.1.
Are there changes to pgbench in this aspect ?
regds
Rajesh Kumar Mallah.
On
On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 21:48 +0530, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, if posting here was not proper instead of starting new thread
(I am really not sure if its bad thing to do)
I would like to share my recent experience on implementation of
client side pooling using pgbouncer. By
Thanks for the thought but it (-C) does not work .
BTW, I think you should use -C option with pgbench for this kind of
testing. -C establishes connection for each transaction, which is
pretty much similar to the real world application which do not use
connection pooling. You will be
From: Rajesh Kumar Mallah mallah.raj...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning.
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:06:09 +0530
Message-ID: aanlktilggkbmc9h7wlhlcdqfm5rjth1-9dpf8golv...@mail.gmail.com
Thanks for the thought but it (-C) does not work .
Still
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging
and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the
existing solutions, but there is a need for making sure that they are
readily available and people know when to use
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:42, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging
and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the
existing solutions, but there is a need
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
Doesn't pgpool do this?
No, and in fact that's exactly why the proposed implementation isn't
ever going to be in core: it's not possible to do it portably.
I'm surprised. Doesn't apache httpd do this? Does it have to do a whole
load of non-portable
On 12/07/10 17:45, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
I'm surprised. Doesn't apache httpd do this? Does it have to do a whole
load of non-portable stuff? It seems to work on a whole load of platforms.
A lot of what Apache HTTPd does is handled via the Apache Portable
Runtime (APR). It contains a lot of
Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote:
So rather than asking should core have a connection pool perhaps
what's needed is to ask what can an in-core pool do that an
external pool cannot do?
(1) It can prevent the most pessimal performance problems resulting
from lack of an external
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 18:58 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 12/07/10 17:45, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
I'm surprised. Doesn't apache httpd do this? Does it have to do a whole
load of non-portable stuff? It seems to work on a whole load of platforms.
A lot of what Apache HTTPd does is handled
Right, let's not confuse Kevin's argument that we should have
connection pooling in core with advocacy for any particular patch or
feature suggestion that he may have offered on some other thread. A
very simple in-core connection pooler might look something like this:
when a session
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I'm also relying on the unsubstantiated assumption that it's
possible to pass a socket connection between processes.
Doesn't pgpool do this?
No, and in fact that's exactly why the proposed implementation isn't
ever going to be in core: it's not possible
It *is* the last place you want to put it, but putting it there can
be much better than not putting it *anywhere*, which is what we've
often seen.
Well, what you proposed is an admission control mechanism, which is
*different* from a connection pool, although the two overlap. A
connection
On 10/07/2010 9:25 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
It *is* the last place you want to put it, but putting it there can
be much better than not putting it *anywhere*, which is what we've
often seen.
Well, what you proposed is an admission control mechanism, which is
*different* from a connection pool,
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2010, at 18:25, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
So while adding (b) to core alone would be very useful for some users,
ironically it's generally for the more advanced users which are not
the
ones we're trying to help on this thread.
It would seem from
57 matches
Mail list logo
