From: | Raul Kaubi <raulkaubi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pooling with npgsql does not seem to work |
Date: | 2020-10-14 17:34:57 |
Message-ID: | CAO_+3-DavFaeOKWbcoWKf7wAg9823yh0dBL3VbhFNmE5g0z=qw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Kontakt David G. Johnston (<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>) kirjutas kuupäeval
K, 14. oktoober 2020 kell 20:07:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 8:49 AM Raul Kaubi <raulkaubi(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I tried both settings
>> MinPoolSize
>> Minimum Pool Size
>>
>> Same for max.
>> Seems like both are supported. In addition to that, when I deliberately
>> made typo there, the application just won’t start at all.
>>
>> So seems like these both are fine, since application does indeed start
>> with these, just I do not see theses 17 processes anywhere..
>>
>
> The npgsql project has its own support channels, this question doesn't
> meet the point of this mailing list nor the PostgreSQL server lists
> generally, but I was curious and took a look around their documentation
> (not helpful) and code. I don't see where the driver, upon initial
> connection with a pool, forces open a number of connections equal to the
> minimum specified. The minimum behaves such that once exceeded the number
> of open connections will then not decrease below that number. It doesn't
> proactively open connections to obtain the minimum - not an unreasonable
> choice.
>
> David J.
>
>
Oh, yeah, it makes sense - this looks like is working as intended then.
Thanks.
Raul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas SIMON | 2020-10-15 06:53:49 | Re: Weird behavior with unique constraint not respected, and random results on same queries |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-10-14 17:10:20 | Re: pgbouncer installation example (Step by step) |