On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:34 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > * Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> [090512 19:27]: > > > Apache solved this problem back when it was still called NSCA HTTPD. Why > > aren't we preforking again? > > Of course, preforking and connection pooling are totally different > beast... >
Yes and no. They both solve similar problems and preforking solves more problems when you look at the picture in entirety (namely authentication integration etc..) > But, what really does preforking give us? A 2 or 3% improvement? It depends on the problem we are solving. We can test it but I would bet it is more than that especially in a high velocity environment. > The > forking isn't the expensive part, It is expensive but not as expensive as the below. > the per-database setup that happens is > the expensive setup... All pre-forking would save us is a tiny part of > the initial setup, and in turn make our robust postmaster controller no > longer have control. I don't buy this. Properly coded we aren't going to lose any "control". Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
