On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 15:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 1. There is no (portable) way to pass the connection from the postmaster >> > to another pre-existing process. >> >> [Googles.] It's not obvious to me that SCM_RIGHTS is non-portable, >> and Windows has an API call WSADuplicateSocket() specifically for this >> purpose. > > Robert, Greg, > > Tom's main point is it isn't worth doing. We have connection pooling > software that works well, very well. Why do we want to bring it into > core? (Think of the bugs we'd hit...) If we did, who would care? I don't know. It seems like it would be easier to manage just PostgreSQL than PostgreSQL + connection pooling software, but mostly I was just curious whether it had been thought about, so I asked, and the answer then led to a further question... was not intending to make a big deal about it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
