public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Li Japin <[email protected]>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Built-in connection pooler
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 14:57:50 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALNJ-vSnRHYi2q5S7pA39eXNccba0Qk9DhL2J9_C-j1TC5TE3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OSAPR01MB1985068ABB08A85828999460EA770@OSAPR01MB1985.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<OSAPR01MB1985554A600901FF0B8D125FEA710@OSAPR01MB1985.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CALNJ-vSnRHYi2q5S7pA39eXNccba0Qk9DhL2J9_C-j1TC5TE3Q@mail.gmail.com>



On Mar 22, 2021, at 4:59 AM, Zhihong Yu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi,

+          With <literal>load-balancing</literal> policy postmaster choose proxy with lowest load average.
+          Load average of proxy is estimated by number of clients connection assigned to this proxy with extra weight for SSL connections.

I think 'load-balanced' may be better than 'load-balancing'.
postmaster choose proxy -> postmaster chooses proxy

+          Load average of proxy is estimated by number of clients connection assigned to this proxy with extra weight for SSL connections.

I wonder if there would be a mixture of connections with and without SSL.

+         Terminate an idle connection pool worker after the specified number of milliseconds.

Should the time unit be seconds ? It seems a worker would exist for at least a second.

+ * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2018, PostgreSQL Global Development Group

It would be better to update the year in the header.

+        * Use then for launching pooler worker backends and report error

Not sure I understand the above sentence. Did you mean 'them' instead of 'then' ?

Cheers

On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:32 AM Konstantin Knizhnik <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
People asked me to resubmit built-in connection pooler patch to commitfest.
Rebased version of connection pooler is attached.


Hi, hackers

Does the PostgreSQL core do not interested in the built-in connection pool? If so, could
somebody tell me why we do not need it? If not, how can we do for this to make it in core?

Thanks in advance!

[Sorry if you already receive this email, since I typo an invalid pgsql list email address in previous email.]

--
Best regards
Japin Li





view thread (2+ messages)

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Built-in connection pooler
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox