Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AB763248E for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:51:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71567-01 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:51:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F09263229C for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:51:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o6AIp6Bs019245; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:51:06 -0400 (EDT) To: Josh Berkus cc: Robert Haas , Craig Ringer , Kevin Grittner , Greg Smith , Matthew Wakeling , Brad Nicholson , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning. In-reply-to: <4C38BF03.6060503@agliodbs.com> References: <4C369346.6010501@postnewspapers.com.au> <8760.1278650566@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1278680186.1914.36.camel@bnicholson-desktop> <4C36F57102000025000332F6@gw.wicourts.gov> <4C36FEAD02000025000332FC@gw.wicourts.gov> <4C37A9C1.1060405@2ndquadrant.com> <4C37791C0200002500033379@gw.wicourts.gov> <4C37CBFB.1000800@agliodbs.com> <4C37EA1D.6000008@postnewspapers.com.au> <4C38BF03.6060503@agliodbs.com> Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus message dated "Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:42:11 -0700" Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:51:06 -0400 Message-ID: <19244.1278787866@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201007/176 X-Sequence-Number: 39565 Josh Berkus writes: >> I'm also relying on the unsubstantiated assumption that it's >> possible to pass a socket connection between processes. > Doesn't pgpool do this? No, and in fact that's exactly why the proposed implementation isn't ever going to be in core: it's not possible to do it portably. (And no, I'm not interested in hearing about how you can do it on platforms X, Y, and/or Z.) I agree with the comments to the effect that this is really a packaging and documentation problem. There is no need for us to re-invent the existing solutions, but there is a need for making sure that they are readily available and people know when to use them. regards, tom lane