| From: | "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: question on backends |
| Date: | 2002-07-29 11:00:46 |
| Message-ID: | 00b001c236ef$321759f0$cab990c1@atc.unican.es |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
How?
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
To: Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro ; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] question on backends
Just use persistent connections.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: [HACKERS] question on backends
Hi all
As I understand every time there is a request to postgres a new backend is made, and when the request is finished, even if the connection is already active the backend dies. I wonder if is there any parameter that allow backends to remain beyond a transaction. Creating a new backend every time a transaction is made means forking the code and reallocating sort_memory. Although it is not a high resource usage, on short transactions as OLTPs it is a relevant work time, I think it would be interesting that a predefined number of backends were allowed to remain active beyond the transaction.
Thanks and Regards
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | cbbrowne | 2002-07-29 12:53:20 | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-29 10:36:30 | Re: question on backends |