Re: [HACKERS] Threads
От | Brian E Gallew |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Threads |
Дата | |
Msg-id | emacs-smtp-621-14248-14607-634640@export.andrew.cmu.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Threads (Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Lamar Owen's comments brought up a thought. Bruce has talked several times about moving in Oracle's direction, with dedicated backends for each database (or maybe in Ingres' direction, since they allow both dedicated backends as well as multi-database backends). In any case, IFF we went that way, would it make sense to reduce the postmaster's role to more of a traffic cop (a la Ingres' iigcn)? Effectively, what we'd end up with is a postmaster that knows "which backends serve which data" that would then either tell the client to reconnect directly to the backend, or else provide a mediated connection. Redirection will end up costing us a whole 'nother TCP connection build/destroy which can be disregarded for non-trivial queries, but still may prove too much (depending upon query patterns). On the other hand, it would probably be easier to code and have better throughput than funneling all data through the postmaster. On the gripping hand, a postmaster that mediated all transactions could also implement QoS style controls, or throttle connections taking an unfair share of the available bandwidth. In any event, this could also be the start of a naming service. It should be relatively easy, with either method, to have the postmaster handle connections to databases (not just tables, mind you) on other machines. -- ===================================================================== | JAVA must have been developed in the wilds of West Virginia. | | After all, why else would it support only single inheritance?? | ===================================================================== | Finger geek@cmu.edu for my public key. | =====================================================================
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: