mirror/postgresql
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git synced 2024-11-27 07:21:09 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add to pool discussion.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Bruce Momjian 2002-01-03 05:52:48 +00:00
parent 2446e300fa
commit f9b792c5c3
1 changed files with 680 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

680
doc/TODO.detail/pool
View File

@ -639,3 +639,683 @@ impact on existing clients.
regards, tom lane
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M16940@postgresql.org Sun Dec 23 23:06:28 2001
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M16940@postgresql.org>
Received: from rs.postgresql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBO46R429655
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:06:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by rs.postgresql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBO40oN57016;
Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:00:50 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M16940@postgresql.org)
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay1.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with SMTP id fBID0um78493
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:00:56 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from ml@augustz.com)
Received: (qmail 79914 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2001 13:00:58 -0000
Received: from acz01997-2.pomona.edu (HELO Microsoft) (134.173.91.3)
by relay1.pair.com with SMTP; 18 Dec 2001 13:00:58 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 134.173.91.3
From: "August Zajonc" <ml@augustz.com>
To: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:00:57 -0800
Message-ID: <OJEJIPPNGKHEBGFEHPLMAEPGCCAA.ml@augustz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR
I feel there was a reasonably nice client side attempt at this using a
worker pool model or something. Can't seem to track it down at this moment.
Also would spread queries in different ways to get a hot backup equivalent
etc. It was slick.
The key is that pgsql be able to support a very significant number of
transactions. Be neat to see some numbers on your attempt.
Site I used to run had 6 front end webservers running PHP apps. Each
persistent connection (a requirement to avoid overhead of set-up/teardowns)
lived as long as the httpd process lived, even if idle. That meant at 250
processes per server we had a good 1500 connections clicking over. Our
feeling was that rather than growing to 3,000 connections as the frontend
grew, why not pool those connections off each machine down to perhaps
75/machine worker threads that actually did the work.
Looks like that's not an issue if these backends suck up few resources.
Doing something similar with MySQL we'd experiance problems if we got into
the 2,000 connection range. (kernel/system limits bumped plenty high).
While we are on TODO's I would like to point out that some way to fully
vacume (ie recover deleted and changed) while a db is in full swing is
critical to larger installtions. We did 2 billion queries between reboots on
a quad zeon MySQL box, and those are real user based queries not data loads
or anything like that. At 750-1000 queries/second bringing the database down
or seriously degrading its performance is not a good option.
Enjoy playing with pgsql as always....
- AZ
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From dhogaza@pacifier.com Tue Dec 18 11:15:06 2001
Return-path: <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Received: from asteroid.pacifier.com ([199.2.117.154])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBIGF5419342
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:15:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pacifier.com (dsl-dhogaza.pacifier.net [207.202.226.68])
by asteroid.pacifier.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBIGEGe29925;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3C1F6B81.10500@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:14:57 -0800
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>, owensmk@earthlink.net,
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
References: <200112180342.fBI3g4s23880@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: OR
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It would just be nice to have it done internally rather than have all
> the clients do it, iff it can be done cleanly.
Serious client applications that need it already do it. Firing up an
Oracle or most other db's isn't that lightweight a deal, either, it's
not useful only for PG..
Personally I'd just view it as getting in the way, but then I use a
webserver that's provided connection pooling for client threads for the
last seven years ...
I agree with Tom that the client seems to be the best place to do this.
Among other things it isn't that difficult. If you know how to fire up
one connection, you know how to fire up N of them and adding logic to
pool them afterwards is easy enough.
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
From dhogaza@pacifier.com Tue Dec 18 11:24:33 2001
Return-path: <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Received: from asteroid.pacifier.com ([199.2.117.154])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBIGOW421363
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:24:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pacifier.com (dsl-dhogaza.pacifier.net [207.202.226.68])
by asteroid.pacifier.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBIGNne00442;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:23:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3C1F6DBF.2040000@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:24:31 -0800
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>, owensmk@earthlink.net,
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
References: <200112180357.fBI3vBm24991@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: OR
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, that is assuming you are using PHP. If you are using something
> else, you connection pooling in there too. All those client interfaces
> reimplementing connection pooling seems like a waste to me.
Effective pooling's pretty specific to your environment, though, so any
general mechanism would have to provide a wide-ranging suite of
parameters governing the number to pool, how long each handle should
live, what to do if a handle's released by a client while in the midst
of a transaction (AOLserver rolls back the transaction, other clients
might want to do something else, i.e. fire a callback or the like), etc etc.
I think it would be fairly complex and for those high-throughput
applications already written with client-side pooling no improvement.
And those are the only applications that need it.
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M16726@postgresql.org Tue Dec 18 11:48:16 2001
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M16726@postgresql.org>
Received: from rs.postgresql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBIGmG422658
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:48:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by rs.postgresql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBIGkFN40986;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:46:15 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M16726@postgresql.org)
Received: from comet.pacifier.com ([199.2.117.155])
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBIGYZm93404
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:34:35 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from dhogaza@pacifier.com)
Received: from pacifier.com (dsl-dhogaza.pacifier.net [207.202.226.68])
by comet.pacifier.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBIGXCX29823;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:33:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3C1F6FF1.9030606@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:33:53 -0800
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Pritchard <mark@tangent.net.au>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
References: <EGECIAPHKLJFDEJBGGOBGEIJFNAA.mark@tangent.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR
Mark Pritchard wrote:
>>I think it is the startup cost that most people want to avoid, and our's
>>is higher than most db's that use threads; at least I think so.
>>
>>It would just be nice to have it done internally rather than have all
>>the clients do it, iff it can be done cleanly.
>>
>
> I'd add that client side connection pooling isn't effective in some cases
> anyway - one application we work with has 4 physical application servers
> running around 6 applications. Each of the applications was written by a
> different vendor, and thus a pool size of five gives you 120 open
> connections.
Tuning a central pooling mechanism to run well in this kind of situation
isn't going to be a trivial task, either. The next thing you'll want is
some way to prioritize the various clients so your more serious
applications have a better chance of getting a pool.
Or you'll want to set up subpools so they don't compete with each other,
in effect replicating what's done now, but adding more complexity to the
central service.
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
From oleg@sai.msu.su Tue Dec 18 12:05:51 2001
Return-path: <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Received: from ra.sai.msu.su (ra.sai.msu.su [158.250.29.2])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBIH5h423591
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:05:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ra (ra [158.250.29.2])
by ra.sai.msu.su (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18592;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:05:26 +0300 (GMT)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:05:26 +0300 (GMT)
From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
X-X-Sender: <megera@ra.sai.msu.su>
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
<owensmk@earthlink.net>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
In-Reply-To: <3C1F6DBF.2040000@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0112182000400.12230-100000@ra.sai.msu.su>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR
Does schema support will resolve this discussion ?
If I understand correctly, initial arguments for connection pooling
was restriction in number of persistent connections. it's right in
current postgresql that if one wants keep connection for performance
reason to several databases the total number of connections will
doubled, trippled and so on. But if I understand schema support will
eventually put away these problem because we could keep only one
pool of connections to the *one* database.
Oleg
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Don Baccus wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, that is assuming you are using PHP. If you are using something
> > else, you connection pooling in there too. All those client interfaces
> > reimplementing connection pooling seems like a waste to me.
>
>
> Effective pooling's pretty specific to your environment, though, so any
> general mechanism would have to provide a wide-ranging suite of
> parameters governing the number to pool, how long each handle should
> live, what to do if a handle's released by a client while in the midst
> of a transaction (AOLserver rolls back the transaction, other clients
> might want to do something else, i.e. fire a callback or the like), etc etc.
>
> I think it would be fairly complex and for those high-throughput
> applications already written with client-side pooling no improvement.
>
> And those are the only applications that need it.
>
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M16748@postgresql.org Tue Dec 18 15:11:46 2001
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M16748@postgresql.org>
Received: from rs.postgresql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBIKBj405415
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:11:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by rs.postgresql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBIKB0N47430;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:11:00 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M16748@postgresql.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dialup.tnt01.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBIJulm05030
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:56:47 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id fBIJuVB04553;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:56:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200112181956.fBIJuVB04553@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
In-Reply-To: <3C1F6ED6.6080107@pacifier.com> "from Don Baccus at Dec 18, 2001
08:29:10 am"
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:56:31 -0500 (EST)
cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>,
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>, owensmk@earthlink.net,
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL90 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The trick for that is to call COMMIT before you pass the backend to a
> > new person.
>
>
> The failure to COMMIT is a programmer error - ROLLBACK's much safer. At
> least that's what we decided in the AOLserver community, and that's
> what the drivers for Oracle and PG (the two I maintain) implement.
Then you can issue a "BEGIN;ROLLBACK;" when you pass the session to the
next user, and "RESET ALL;" of course.
> > Now, if you want to abort a left-over transaction, you can
> > do an ABORT but that is going to show up in the server logs because an
> > ABORT without a transaction causes an error message.
>
>
> The connection pooling mechanism needs to track the transaction state
> and only ROLLBACK a handle that's not in autocommit state or in the
> midst of a BEGIN/END transaction (again, Oracle vs. PG)..
Seems like a lot of work to keep track of transaction state in the
client; seems easier to just unconditionally issue the begin;rollback.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M16793@postgresql.org Wed Dec 19 00:46:50 2001
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M16793@postgresql.org>
Received: from rs.postgresql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBJ5kn426988
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:46:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by rs.postgresql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBJ5gnN63439;
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:42:49 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M16793@postgresql.org)
Received: from deborah.paradise.net.nz (deborah.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.32])
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBJ5Uvm41224
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:30:58 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from andrew@catalyst.net.nz)
Received: from heidegger.catalyst.net.nz (203-96-145-108.adsl.paradise.net.nz [203.96.145.108])
by deborah.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP
id D1C7CD194D; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:31:01 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ident=unknown) by heidegger.catalyst.net.nz
with esmtp (MasqMail 0.1.15) id 16GZJK-5NU-00; Wed, 19 Dec 2001
18:30:34 +1300
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
From: Andrew McMillan <andrew@catalyst.net.nz>
To: owensmk@earthlink.net
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <200112180028.fBI0Sum06915@postgresql.org>
References: <200112180028.fBI0Sum06915@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release)
Date: 19 Dec 2001 18:30:34 +1300
Message-ID: <1008739834.25608.33.camel@kant.mcmillan.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR
On Tue, 2001-12-18 at 13:46, Michael Owens wrote:
>
> By having the postmaster map multiple clients to a fixed number of backends,
> you achieve the happy medium: You never exceed the ideal number of active
> backends, and at the same time you are not limited to only accepting a fixed
> number of connections. Accepting connections can now be based on load
> (however you wish to define it), not number. You now make decisions based on
> utlization.
>
> If it were shown that even half of a backend's life consisted of idle time,
> leasing out that idle time to another active connection would potentially
> double the average number of simultaneous requests without (theoretically)
> incurring any significant degradation in performance.
>
Have you looked at the client-side connection pooling solutions out
there?
DBBalancer ( http://dbbalancer.sourceforge.net/ ) tries to sit very
transparently between your application and PostgreSQL, letting you
implement connection pooling with almost no application changes.
There was another one I came across too, but that one requires you to
make more wide-reaching changes to the application.
In my applications I have found DBBalancer to be roughly the same level
of performance as PHP persistent connections, but a lot fewer
connections are needed in the pool because they are only needed when
Apache is delivering dynamic content - not the associated static
stylesheets and images.
Regards,
Andrew.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/ PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St
DDI: +64(4)916-7201 MOB: +64(21)635-694 OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267
Are you enrolled at http://schoolreunions.co.nz/ yet?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M16834@postgresql.org Wed Dec 19 14:17:47 2001
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M16834@postgresql.org>
Received: from rs.postgresql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBJJHk404096
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:17:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by rs.postgresql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBJJENN87550;
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:14:23 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M16834@postgresql.org)
Received: from asteroid.pacifier.com ([199.2.117.154])
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBJJ55m16181
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:05:05 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from dhogaza@pacifier.com)
Received: from pacifier.com (dsl-dhogaza.pacifier.net [207.202.226.68])
by asteroid.pacifier.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBJJ3fe20585;
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3C20E4B9.8090200@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:04:25 -0800
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: owensmk@earthlink.net
cc: Andrew McMillan <andrew@catalyst.net.nz>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
References: <200112180028.fBI0Sum06915@postgresql.org> <1008739834.25608.33.camel@kant.mcmillan.net.nz> <E16Gl55-0005ug-00@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR
Michael Owens wrote:
> As long as each client's call is composed of a standalone transaction, there
> is no problem with external connection pools. But what about when a client's
> transactions spans two or more calls, such as SELECT FOR UPDATE? Then pooling
> is not safe: it offers no assurance of what may be interjected into an open
> transaction between calls. For example, each is a separate call to a shared
> connection:
>
> Client A: BEGIN WORK; SELECT last_name from customer for update where <X>;
>
> Client B: BEGIN WORK; SELECT street from customer for update where <Y>;
>
> Client A: update customer set lastname=<modified value> where <X>; COMMIT
> WORK;
>
>
> Now, isn't Client B's write lock gone with Client A's commit? Yet Client A's
> lock is still hanging around. While Client B's commit will close it, Client B
> has lost the assurance of its lock, defeating the purpose of SELECT FOR
> UPDATE.
>
> If this is corrent, then external connection pools limit what you can do with
> the database to a single call. Any transaction spanning more than one call is
> unsafe, because it is not isolated from other clients sharing the same
> connection.
The general idea is that you grab a handle and hold onto it until you're
done. This makes the above scenario impossible.
Forgetting to commit or rollback before relenquishing the handle is
another scenario that can lead to problems but that's already been
discussed in detail.
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M16838@postgresql.org Wed Dec 19 15:17:32 2001
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M16838@postgresql.org>
Received: from rs.postgresql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBJKHV408663
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:17:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by rs.postgresql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBJKDNN89347;
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:13:23 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M16838@postgresql.org)
Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84])
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBJKA2m62023
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:10:03 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owensmk@earthlink.net)
Received: from sdn-ar-004txfworp179.dialsprint.net ([158.252.142.219] helo=there)
by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 16Gn2K-0005YP-00; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:09:57 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Michael Owens <owensmk@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: owensmk@earthlink.net
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:28:14 -0600
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1]
cc: Andrew McMillan <andrew@catalyst.net.nz>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <200112180028.fBI0Sum06915@postgresql.org> <E16Gl55-0005ug-00@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3C20E4B9.8090200@pacifier.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C20E4B9.8090200@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <E16Gn2K-0005YP-00@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 01:04 pm, Don Baccus wrote:
> The general idea is that you grab a handle and hold onto it until you're
> done. This makes the above scenario impossible.
>
> Forgetting to commit or rollback before relenquishing the handle is
> another scenario that can lead to problems but that's already been
> discussed in detail.
But then the shared connection is unshared, sitting idle while the client
works in between calls, thus introducing idle time among a fixed number of
connections. The server is doing less than it could.
I agree that this connection pool has improved things in eliminating backend
startup time. But idle time still exists for the clients performing multiple
calls, proportional to the product of the number of multiple call clients and
the number of calls they make, plus the idle time between them.
However this probably only ever happens on update. Inserts and selects can be
done in one call. And, I suppose updates comprise only a small fraction of
the requests sent to the database. Even then, you can probably eliminate some
multiple calls by using things such as procedures.
Factoring all that in, you can probably do as well by optimizing your
particular database/application than by writing code.
I relent. Thanks for your thoughts.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M16855@postgresql.org Thu Dec 20 01:02:51 2001
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M16855@postgresql.org>
Received: from rs.postgresql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBK62o404294
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:02:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
by rs.postgresql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBK5xnN05417;
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:59:49 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M16855@postgresql.org)
Received: from deborah.paradise.net.nz (deborah.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.32])
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id fBK5mvm47263
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:48:57 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from andrew@catalyst.net.nz)
Received: from heidegger.catalyst.net.nz (203-96-145-94.adsl.paradise.net.nz [203.96.145.94])
by deborah.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 7407FD2B76; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:49:01 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ident=unknown) by heidegger.catalyst.net.nz
with esmtp (MasqMail 0.1.15) id 16GrRk-2Ry-00; Thu, 20 Dec 2001
13:52:28 +1300
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection Pooling, a year later
From: Andrew McMillan <andrew@catalyst.net.nz>
To: owensmk@earthlink.net
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <E16Gl55-0005ug-00@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
References: <200112180028.fBI0Sum06915@postgresql.org>
<1008739834.25608.33.camel@kant.mcmillan.net.nz>
<E16Gl55-0005ug-00@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release)
Date: 20 Dec 2001 13:52:28 +1300
Message-ID: <1008809548.24470.48.camel@kant.mcmillan.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR
On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 07:22, Michael Owens wrote:
> As long as each client's call is composed of a standalone transaction, there
> is no problem with external connection pools. But what about when a client's
> transactions spans two or more calls, such as SELECT FOR UPDATE? Then pooling
> is not safe: it offers no assurance of what may be interjected into an open
> transaction between calls. For example, each is a separate call to a shared
> connection:
>
> Client A: BEGIN WORK; SELECT last_name from customer for update where <X>;
>
> Client B: BEGIN WORK; SELECT street from customer for update where <Y>;
>
> Client A: update customer set lastname=<modified value> where <X>; COMMIT
> WORK;
>
>
> Now, isn't Client B's write lock gone with Client A's commit? Yet Client A's
> lock is still hanging around. While Client B's commit will close it, Client B
> has lost the assurance of its lock, defeating the purpose of SELECT FOR
> UPDATE.
>
> If this is corrent, then external connection pools limit what you can do with
> the database to a single call. Any transaction spanning more than one call is
> unsafe, because it is not isolated from other clients sharing the same
> connection.
Oh, I see. You are absolutely correct that client-side pooling wouldn't
work in that situation of course.
As an application developer nobody has forced me into such a corner yet,
however. Long running transactions are something I avoid like the
plague.
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/ PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St
DDI: +64(4)916-7201 MOB: +64(21)635-694 OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267
Are you enrolled at http://schoolreunions.co.nz/ yet?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org