Re: Connection pooling.

* Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> [000711 21:31] wrote:
> > It seems like a first step would be to just have postmaster cache unused
> > connections.  In other words if a client closes a connection, postmaster
> > keeps the connection and the child process around for the next connect
> > request.  This has many of your advantages, but not all.  However, it seems
> > like it would be simpler than attempting to multiplex a connection between
> > multiple clients.
> > 
> 
> This does seem like a good optimization.

I'm not sure if the postmaster is needed besideds just to fork/exec
the backend, if so then when a backend finishes it can just call
accept() on the listening socket inherited from the postmaster to
get the next incomming connection.

-Alfred