Subject: Re: Need help in performance tuning.
From: Brad Nicholson <bnichols@ca.afilias.info>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <8760.1278650566@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <AANLkTiknhZhKtGDidBsMWtPJpRgln9DrrsCebCEYk5XE@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C369346.6010501@postnewspapers.com.au>
	<AANLkTin4Q4APRnbJ85FRasU7n8LuhKibKYcGnexsEbTt@mail.gmail.com>
	<8760.1278650566@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:56:25 -0400
Message-ID: <1278680186.1914.36.camel@bnicholson-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Samuel Gendler <sgendler@ideasculptor.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer
> > <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> 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.