Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: > On 5 December 2016 at 19:48, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: >> 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:
> I'm kind of mystified how a simple code restructuring could solve the > fundamental problems with a large number of backends. It sounds like > what you're describing would just push the problem around, you would > end up with some other maximum instead, max_backends, or > max_active_backends, or something like that with the same problems. What it sounds like to me is building a connection pooler into the backend. I'm not really convinced we ought to go there. > Heikki's work with CSN would actually address the main fundamental > problem. Instead of having to scan PGPROC when taking a snapshot > taking a snapshot would be O(1). While that would certainly improve matters, I suspect there are still going to be bottlenecks arising from too many backends. 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