[pgpool-hackers: 3162] Re: Proposal: limiting number of frontends differently

[Tatsuo Ishii]

>> This is a proposal for Pgpool-II 4.1.
>> 
>> Currently Pgpool-II accepts up to num_init_children frontends and
>> queues up more connection requests until one of child process becomes
>> free. This mostly works well, but if each session take long time, the
>> queue grows long and the whole system does not work smoothly.
>> 
>> To overcome the problem, I propose a new way to deal with many
>> connection requests from frontend: just complain and refuses to
>> connect to Pgpool-II if number of num_init_children is already filled
>> up. This is exactly the same behavior as PostgreSQL.
>> 
>> Attached PoC patch demonstrates how the new behavior works. If
>> connection request comes more than num_init_children - 1 comes in, the
>> frontend gets an error:
>> 
>> 	 FATAL:  Sorry, too many clients already
>> 
>> and it cannot connect to Pgpool-II.
>> 
>> I think existing behavior of Pgpool-II is suitable for some users but
>> others might want the new way, and we should provide a switch to allow
>> users to choose their favorite behaviors.
>> 
>> Maybe something like "queue_incoming_connection"? If true, then
>> existing behavior is chosen (queue incoming connections).
> 
> After thinking more, I believe the type of queue_incoming_connection
> is better to be integer, rather than boolean. I mean
> queue_incoming_connection is:
> 
> 0: keep the existing behavior. i.e. queuing up incoming connections requests.
> 
> positive integer n: complain if new connection request is coming while
> number of connection reaches num_init_children - n.
> 
> For example, if num_init_children = 32 and queue_incoming_connection =
> 1, then Pgpool-II accepts up to 31 connections. But the 32th
> connection request will be refused and get "FATAL: Sorry, too many
> clients already" message. The advantage of this is, user can control
> precisely the acceptable max connections. Since on a high load system,
> the connection count may temporary exceed num_init_children - 1 (a
> connection is finished but the post process may not finish yet). In
> this case users may want to set n to higher value, like 5 or even 10.
> 
> So maybe I should change the variable name to something like
> "connection_reserve"?

After thinking more, "reversed_connections" looks more appropreate to
me. And changes are pushed.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp