pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Cc: Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning.
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:44:49 -0700
Message-ID: <4C5088B1.70902@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20776.1280282217@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4C37A9C1.1060405@2ndquadrant.com>
	<4C37791C0200002500033379@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4C37CBFB.1000800@agliodbs.com>
	<4C37EA1D.6000008@postnewspapers.com.au>
	<AANLkTimNJZlX7kFH_r0-BB_K3NGorU7BHd85SxXJbuGJ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C38BF03.6060503@agliodbs.com>
	<19244.1278787866@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1007121044330.2534@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<4C3AF564.5030204@postnewspapers.com.au>
	<AANLkTikG_QqNXmGaAtnChGHyVAhdSosoE5M3MXwDKMH8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100722212954.GA16758@anarazel.de>
	<AANLkTinnxNM2vOwB6-tkBhCQ=6+xChOfdjrofDEpxYxk@mail.gmail.com>
	<13654.1280263202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<AANLkTi=KtADzPgBSnfmPfk2YwoMaZ2=iq8BAtYbxjO8B@mail.gmail.com>
	<20776.1280282217@sss.pgh.pa.us>

On 7/27/10 6:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, if it weren't for that I'd say "sure let's try it".  But I'm
> afraid we'd be introducing significant headaches in return for a gain
> that's quite speculative.

Well, the *gain* isn't speculative.  For example, I am once again
dealing with the issue that PG backend processes on Solaris never give
up their RAM, resulting in pathological swapping situations if you have
many idle connections.  This requires me to install pgpool, which is
overkill (since it has load balancing, replication, and more) just to
make sure that connections get recycled so that I don't have 300 idle
connections eating up 8GB of RAM.

Relative to switching databases, I'd tend to say that, like pgbouncer
and pgpool, we don't need to support that.  Each user/database combo can
have their own "pool".  While not ideal, this would be good enough for
90% of users.

-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com



view thread (59+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4C5088B1.70902@agliodbs.com>
Permalink:  ../4C5088B1.70902@agliodbs.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4C5088B1.70902@agliodbs.com

 · 

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: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, craig@postnewspapers.com.au, matthew@flymine.org
  Subject: Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning.
  In-Reply-To: <4C5088B1.70902@agliodbs.com>

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

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