From: | John Cunningham <fatbobo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | General PostgreSQL list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | pgpool |
Date: | 2005-01-13 18:15:52 |
Message-ID: | 6f782a2405011310158670f01@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I was considering putting pgpool in to place and was hoping to hear
some feedback from those who use it. I am mostly concerned about the
configuration I have.
In my setup, any one database server contains between 100 and 300
databases on it, each of which may be accessed at any time by one of
several web servers.
The database servers I use are monsters - Dual Xeon 3.2 with 8GB of
RAM. As I was querying this group earlier as to postgresql.conf
tweaks I could do to speed things up the idea of setting fewer
connections and using pgpool was brought up repeatedly. I am
concerned that if I drop the number of connections to less than the
number of databases I have, that pgpool would open the limit of
connections, hold them open and not allow any connections to the
remaining databases. Is this a concern? If I set up pgpool will I
have to have the same number of connections as I have databases?
Your input is appreciated.
-John
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-01-13 18:28:02 | Re: allowing connections from additional hosts without a restart? |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-01-13 18:11:09 | Re: vacuum vs open transactions |