On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Heck, I think an even *more* trivial admission control policy which > limits the number of active database transactions released to > execution might solve a lot of problems.
That wouldn't have any benefit over what you can already do with a connection pooler, though, I think. In fact, it would probably be strictly worse, since enlarging the number of backends slows the system down even if they aren't actually doing anything much. > Of course, what you > propose is more useful, although I'd be inclined to think that we'd > want an admission control layer which could be configured so support > both of these and much more. Done correctly, it could almost > completely eliminate the downward slope after you hit the "knee" in > many performance graphs. And world peace! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
