On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:48:03PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > max_connections is a frequent point of contention between users and > developers. Users want to set it high so they don't have to deal with Yet > More Software (pgpool or pgBouncer); PG developers freak out because > backends are pretty heavyweight, there's some very hot code that's sensitive > to the size of ProcArray, lock contention, etc. > > One solution to this would be to segregate connection handling from actual > backends, somewhere along the lines of separating the main loop from the > switch() that handles libpq commands. Benefits:
[interesting stuff elided] What do you see as the relationship between this proposal and the earlier one for admission control? https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4b38c1c5020000250002d...@gw.wicourts.gov Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
