Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
| От | Andrew Dunstan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 449AFB5F.4020807@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC (PFC <lists@peufeu.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
PFC wrote: > >> What you seem not to grasp at this point is a large web-farm, about >> 10 or >> more servers running PHP, Java, ASP, or even perl. The database is >> usually >> the most convenient and, aside from the particular issue we are talking >> about, best suited. > > > The answer is sticky sessions : each user is assigned to one and > only one webserver in the cluster and his session is maintained > locally, in RAM. No locks, no need to manage distributed session... Sticky sessions can cause enormous problems. I have just worked on a site whose problems largely come back to having to use a load balancer in front of an app server farm that required sticky sessions. They are not a solution, they are a disease. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: