On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. I'm not buying it. A separate connection pooler increases overhead and management complexity, and, I believe, limits our ability to implement optimizations like parallel query execution. I'm glad there are good ones available, but the fact that they're absolutely necessary for good performance in some environments is not a feature. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
