From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ole Streicher <ole-usenet-08(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Postgres JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Subject: | Re: Another exception (Transaction level) |
Date: | 2003-07-25 14:23:44 |
Message-ID: | 1059143024.10668.24.camel@coppola.ecircle.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
> > Concurrently? Do you mean that you a sharing one connection between
> > several threads?
>
> Yes. I didn't see a hint why this should be problematic.
You should use a connection pool: open a few connections beforehand, and
each thread can then request one for it's exclusive use, and then give
it back after finishing. There are lots of possible
strategies/variations you could apply to the nr. of initial connections,
how to grow/shrink that depending on load, what happens if there are too
many connections open and there's a new connection (you can wait or
throw exception), etc.
Google around or search this list for "connection pool" and I'm sure
you'll find a lot of hints and code examples.
Cheers,
Csaba.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-25 14:28:00 | Re: Another LargeObject problem |
Previous Message | Ole Streicher | 2003-07-25 14:15:03 | Re: Another exception (Transaction level) |