From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Greg Copeland" <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: idle connection timeout ... |
Date: | 2002-10-25 16:07:10 |
Message-ID: | 011c01c27c40$94f46130$4201a8c0@beeblebrox |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Basically, total connections is to be set larger than you think you will
> > ever need, while you expect per-db to be hit, and if something keeps
> > trying to connect and failing, we may get very bad connection
> > performance for other backends.
>
> Hmm, I see your point. A per-db limit *could* be useful even if it's
> set high enough that you don't expect it to be hit ... but most likely
> people would try to use it in a way that it wouldn't be very efficient
> compared to a client-side solution.
What about a shared database server, where you want to have resource
limits for each database/user?
Could be usefull in such a case, even if it is not very efficient, it
would be the only way. As dba you need not have control over the
client apps.
Just a thought.
Regards,
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-10-25 17:00:27 | Re: idle connection timeout ... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-25 15:52:36 | Re: idle connection timeout ... |