Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4347.1058563738@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Urgent: 10K or more connections
|
Список | pgsql-general |
"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes: > But I'm sure that with a few tweaks to the code here and there it's > doable, just don't expect it to work "out of the box". I think you'd be sticking your neck out to assume that 10k concurrent connections would perform well, even after tweaking. I'd worry first about whether the OS can handle 10k processes (which among other things would probably require order-of-300k open file descriptors...). Maybe Solaris is built to do that but the Unixen I've dealt with would go belly up. After that you'd have to look at Postgres' internal issues --- contention on access to the PROC array would probably become a significant factor, for example, and we'd have to do some redesign to avoid linear scans of the PROC array where possible. I don't doubt that we could support 10k concurrent *users*, given connection pooling of some kind. I'm dubious about 10k concurrent database sessions though. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: