Re: Monitoring number of backends

From: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Monitoring number of backends
Date: 2013-10-22 20:53:52
Message-ID: 5266E5E0.90609@hogranch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 10/22/2013 1:13 PM, andy wrote:
> No, actually, I don't think my connect overhead is huge. My apache
> and postgres are on the same box, and it connects using unix socket.
> Perhaps if my apache on db were on different boxes it would be a problem.

each postgres connection, if you're not using a pool, requires a fork()
of the postgres process. fork is inherently an expensive process,
especially for a moderately large and fairly complex piece of software
like postgresql.

--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message andy 2013-10-22 21:12:02 Re: Monitoring number of backends
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-10-22 20:44:25 Re: Monitoring number of backends