| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michal Taborsky <michal(at)taborsky(dot)cz>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Thousands of parallel connections |
| Date: | 2004-08-16 15:00:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1092668447.944.11.camel@coppola.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
[snip]
> requests, it only saves connection start effort. (You could make the
> connection pool server queue the requests, but that is not the point of this
> exercise.) I didn't quite consider the RAM question, but the machine is
[snip]
Well, I would disagree here. If the connections are not busy all the
time, a queueing connection pool will help you drastically reduce the
effective number of needed concurrent connections. We do this with good
results, and the programming overhead is practically null, the queueing
can be hidden in the pool itself (which of course must be well written,
but that's a one time job).
Just my 2c,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-16 15:23:27 | Re: major database breakdown |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-08-16 14:54:50 | Re: Thousands of parallel connections |