| From: | Raghavendra <raghavendra(dot)rao(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Deshpande, Yogesh Sadashiv (STSD-Openview)" <yogesh-sadashiv(dot)deshpande(at)hp(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgre Performance |
| Date: | 2011-10-18 17:03:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+h6Ahg61dAUrUvF7T1Ayx6tsVwOAsn62+MXE8ZjnyELpcoY6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> > We need following information
> >
> > 1. Is there any configuration we do that would pool the connection
> request rather than coming out with connection limit exceed.
>
> Use pgpool or pgbouncer.
>
>
Use pgbouncer, which is a light weighted connection pooling tool, if you are
not opting for load balancing.
> > Basically we wanted to limit the number of processes so that client code
> doesn't have to retry for unavailability for connection or sub processes ,
> but postgre takes care of queuing?
>
>
For controlling unavailability of connections, it may be possible at
application level but its not possible at Database level. However, if
connections reaches max limit, DB will alert you as it reached
max_connection.
--Raghav
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2011-10-18 17:18:14 | Re: Postgre Performance |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2011-10-18 16:51:16 | Re: Postgre Performance |