Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue jun 09 10:55:45 -0400 2011: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Slower than sleeping? Consider that this doesn't need to be done for > > each record insertion, only when you need to flush (maybe more than > > that, but I think that's the lower limit). > > Maybe. I'm worried that if someone jacks up max_connections to 1000 > or 5000 or somesuch it could get pretty slow. Well, other things are going to get pretty slow as well, not just this one, which is why we suggest using a connection pooler with a reasonable limit. On the other hand, maybe those are things we ought to address sometime, so perhaps we don't want to be designing the old limitation into a new feature. A possibly crazy idea: instead of having a MaxBackends-sized array, how about some smaller array of insert-done-pointer-updating backends (a couple dozen or so), and if it's full, the next one has to sleep a bit until one of them becomes available. We could protect this with a PGSemaphore having as many counts as items are in the array. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
