| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "List, Postgres" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: max_connections proposal |
| Date: | 2011-05-26 13:48:44 |
| Message-ID: | 13391.1306417724@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
> # WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
> # should probably be using a connection pool instead. See:
> # http://wiki.postgresql.org/max_connections
This gives the impression that performance is great at 100 and falls off
a cliff at 101, which is both incorrect and likely to lower peoples'
opinion of the software. I'd suggest wording more like "if you're
considering raising max_connections into the thousands, you should
probably use a connection pool instead". And I agree with Merlin that a
wiki pointer is inappropriate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-05-26 13:52:33 | Re: Miidpoint between two long/lat points? (earthdistance?) |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-05-26 13:48:05 | Re: Is there any problem with pg_notify and memory consumption? |