Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3376332AE for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 01:42:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04828-08 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 04:42:48 +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 9FE43632442 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 01:42:48 -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 o694gkdk008761; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 00:42:47 -0400 (EDT) To: Samuel Gendler cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Need help in performance tuning. In-reply-to: References: <4C369346.6010501@postnewspapers.com.au> Comments: In-reply-to Samuel Gendler message dated "Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:19:22 -0700" Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:42:46 -0400 Message-ID: <8760.1278650566@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: 201007/143 X-Sequence-Number: 39532 Samuel Gendler writes: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer > 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. regards, tom lane