"Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On 7/5/2013 1:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> This is one of the reasons why we've discussed having a kind of
>> stripped-down version of pgbouncer built into Postgres as a connection
>> manager. If it weren't valuable to be able to relocate pgbouncer to
>> other hosts, I'd still say that was a good idea.
> No kidding. I think a lot of -hackers forget that the web rules here and
> the web is stateless, which means a huge performance loss for postgresql
> unless we add yet another piece of software. Pre-forking here would
> really help us.
Pre-forking, per se, wouldn't be that much help IMO. You really want to
connect to a backend that's already loaded its catalog caches etc. So a
connection pooler is the right solution, not least because you can get
it today. Whether we should integrate a pooler into core is more of a
project management issue than a technical one, I think.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
