On Wednesday 01 December 2010 15:20:32 Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/28/10, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> To some degree we're a > >> victim of our own flexible and extensible architecture here, but I > >> find it pretty unsatisfying to just say, OK, well, we're slow. > > > > What about "well OK, we have PGbouncer"? Are there fixable > > short-comings that it has which could make the issue less of an issue? > > We do have pgbouncer, and pgpool-II, and that's a good thing. But it > also requires proxying every interaction with the database through an > intermediate piece of software, which is not free. An in-core > solution ought to be able to arrange for each new connection to be > directly attached to an existing backend, using file-descriptor > passing. Tom has previously complained that this isn't portable, but > a little research suggests that it is supported on at least Linux, Mac > OS X, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, and Windows, so in practice the > percentage of our user base who could benefit seems like it would > likely be very high. HPUX and AIX allow fd transfer as well. I still don't see what even remotely relevant platform would be a problem.
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
