Re: Are we still interested in the master-slave scan patch

"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote
> > The other is the connection pool architecture: shall we let
> > postmaster manage the slaves or let another process say slave-master to
> > handle them? Currently I am choosing the latter.
>
> Hmmm.  Why not the postmaster?
>

Not real reason just feel that's clearer (but indeed it caused some
trouble). I am thinking maybe we should make a server-side connection pool
patch as a first step (which was discussed long time ago but no conclusion
yet). In this way, we will be able to reduce the connection time and make a
basis for parallel execution.

Regards,
Qingqing