From: | Kristjan Mustkivi <sonicmonkey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Pgbouncer pool_mode and application behavior |
Date: | 2022-06-14 05:53:04 |
Message-ID: | CAOQPKasiV_pDg3R0TU8ZSEoQc6A02OAyOKJrKCngWtgrhHeebw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thank you, Scott!
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 5:33 PM Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:04 AM, Kristjan Mustkivi <sonicmonkey(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Am I correct to guess, that pgbouncer in this case in
> > pool_mode=session does not help at all and in order to improve
> > throughput, server engineers really must implement support for
> > transaction mode that pgbouncer provides?
>
> You are correct that session mode will not solve the problem you described. There are 3 possibilities:
>
> - as you mentioned, changed clients to be compatible with pgbouncer transaction pooling
>
> - increase pg max_connections
>
> - increase timeouts, use retries, etc so that the servers are more resilient to being temporarily denied connections
--
Kristjan Mustkivi
Email: kristjan(dot)mustkivi(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikhil Shetty | 2022-06-14 11:58:17 | Re: Recovery conflict due to buffer pins |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-06-13 18:30:44 | Re: Recovery conflict due to buffer pins |