Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority
От | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADK3HH+eMdju_peR3ugnu6EYQkZB0vzvqrDQVKxDB2+ea3iQfA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 09:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:35 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Oh! The reason I assumed it wasn't doing that is that such a behavior
> seems completely insane. If the point is to keep down the load on your
> master server, then connecting only to immediately disconnect is not
> a friendly way to do that --- even without counting the fact that you
> might later come back and connect again.
That seems like a really weak argument. Opening a connection to the
master surely isn't free, but it must be vastly cheaper than the cost
of the queries you intend to run. I mean, no reasonable production
user of PostgreSQL opens a connection, runs one or two short queries,
and then closes the connection. You open a connection and keep it
open for minutes, hours, days, or longer, running hundreds, thousands,
or millions of queries. The cost of checking whether you've got a
master or a standby is a drop in the bucket.
And, I mean, if there's some scenario where what I just said isn't
true, well then don't use this feature in that particular case.
And to enforce Robert's argument even further almost every pool implementation I am aware of
has a keep alive query. So why not use the opportunity to check to see if is a primary or standby at the same time
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: