Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675756322EA for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:19:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40647-03 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:19:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.anarazel.de (mail.anarazel.de [217.115.131.40]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015CA633229 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:19:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix, from userid 108) id A171C448004; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:19:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anarazel.de (e178203208.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.203.208]) by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E88D0448003; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:19:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by anarazel.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B9C901C00A7; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:19:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:19:22 +0200 From: Andres Freund To: Tom Lane Cc: Robert Haas , Josh Berkus , Craig Ringer , Matthew Wakeling , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning. Message-ID: <20100728201922.GA2984@anarazel.de> References: <4C3AF564.5030204@postnewspapers.com.au> <20100722212954.GA16758@anarazel.de> <13654.1280263202@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20776.1280282217@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4C5088B1.70902@agliodbs.com> <22316.1280347808@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <22316.1280347808@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 201007/439 X-Sequence-Number: 39828 On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:10:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > However, if we don't support that, we can't do any sort of pooling-ish > > thing without the ability to pass file descriptors between processes; > > and Tom seems fairly convinced there's no portable way to do that. > > Well, what it would come down to is: are we prepared to not support > pooling on platforms without such a capability? It's certainly possible > to do it on many modern platforms, but I don't believe we can make it > happen everywhere. Generally we've tried to avoid having major features > that don't work everywhere ... Which platforms do you have in mind here? All of the platforms I found documented to be supported seem to support at least one of SCM_RIGHTS, WSADuplicateSocket or STREAMS/FD_INSERT. Most if not all beside windows support SCM_RIGHTS. The ones I am dubious about support FD_INSERT... Andres