On 7 December 2016 at 10:19, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> What it sounds like to me is building a connection pooler into the
> backend. I'm not really convinced we ought to go there.
If we do, it probably needs to be able to offer things that
out-of-tree ones can't.
The main things I see that you can't do sensibly with an out-of-tree pooler are:
* Re-use a backend for different session users. You can SET SESSION
AUTHORIZATION, but once you hand the connection off to the client they
can just do it again or RESET SESSION AUTHORIZATION and whammo,
they're a superuser. Same issue applies for SET ROLE and RESET ROLE.
* Cope with session-level state when transaction pooling. We probably
can't do anything much about WITH HOLD cursors, advisory locks, etc,
but we could save and restore GUC state and a few other things, and we
could detect whether or not we can save and restore state so we could
switch transparently between session and transaction pooling.
* Know, conclusively, whether a query is safe to reroute to a
read-only standby, without hard coded lists of allowed functions, iffy
SQL parsers, etc. Or conversely, transparently re-route queries from
standbys to a read/write master.
In other words, we could start to separate session state from executor
state in a limited manner. That'd definitely be valuable, IMO; it's a
real shame that Pg's architecture so closely couples the two.
So - is just doing "PgInCoreBouncer" a good idea? No, I don't think
so. But there are potentially good things to be done in the area.
What I don't see here is a patch, or a vague proposal for a patch, so
I'm not sure how this can go past the hot-air stage.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services