From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Brandon Phelps <bphelps(at)gls(dot)com> |
Cc: | Adam Cornett <adam(dot)cornett(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Connection Pooling |
Date: | 2011-10-07 18:05:38 |
Message-ID: | 1318010739.2116.20.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 13:51 -0400, Brandon Phelps wrote:
> So we decided to go with pgpool-II. The documentation is a little lacking for pgpool-II so I have one question:
>
> How are connections handled once the default levels are reached? Here are my pgpool settings:
>
> num_init_children = 32
> max_pool = 4
>
This configuration means you can have at most 32 clients sending queries
at the same time to PostgreSQL via pgpool. With a max_pool of 4, each
pgpool process can handle four different connections to the same server:
they could differ either by the database name or by the user name.
> This creates 32 child processes when we start pgpool which I understand. Each time I browse to a page from our web app and do a netstat -an on the web server (running pgpool) I see an additional connection to the database server, which looks good. I assume that once 32 connections are opened at once then pgpool will start re-using them, based on the num_init_children * max_pool... But since 32 * 4 = 128, what will happen on the 129th connection? Will a new child get created, allowing for 4 more connections (1 * max_pool), or will that connection be denied?
>
Connection is not denied (that would be the behaviour of PostgreSQL).
Connection is on hold waiting for a pgpool process to be available.
Meaning you don't want long connections.
--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jack Christensen | 2011-10-07 18:23:33 | Failure controlling PG 9.1 service on Ubuntu 10.04 32-bit |
Previous Message | Brandon Phelps | 2011-10-07 17:51:13 | Re: Connection Pooling |