| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Alexandor84 <oleksandr(dot)sukhotskyi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Set readonly transaction per transaction |
| Date: | 2014-12-09 19:40:09 |
| Message-ID: | 2006725267.4564708.1418154009521.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10084.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> On 8 December 2014 at 03:17, Alexandor84 <oleksandr(dot)sukhotskyi(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> No one faced with such problem?
> Apparently not. I doubt many people use pgbouncer in transaction
> mode.
>
> Can you explain why you are using transaction mode ?
Hey, now! I often recommend transaction mode, because I have seen
applications scale to a much higher concurrency that way. See:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Number_Of_Database_Connections
and:
As a suggestion to the original poster, how about executing:
SET read_only = on;
... as the first statement of a new transaction?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ondrej Chaloupka | 2014-12-10 08:08:41 | Incorrect return code for error on call of commit during 2PC |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2014-12-08 10:51:36 | Re: Set readonly transaction per transaction |