On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Samuel Gendler <sgendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer > > <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If you're not using a connection pool, start using one. > > > I see this issue and subsequent advice cross this list awfully > > frequently. Is there in architectural reason why postgres itself > > cannot pool incoming connections in order to eliminate the requirement > > for an external pool? > > Perhaps not, but there's no obvious benefit either. Since there's > More Than One Way To Do It, it seems more practical to keep that as a > separate problem that can be solved by a choice of add-on packages. This sounds similar to the approach to taken with Replication for years before being moved into core. Just like replication, pooling has different approaches. I do think that in both cases, having a solution that works, easily, out of the "box" will meet the needs of most users. There is also the issue of perception/adoption here as well. One of my colleagues mentioned that at PG East that he repeatedly heard people talking (negatively) about the over reliance on add-on packages to deal with core DB functionality. -- Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106 Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
