| From: | "David Kremer" <jkorders(at)gmx(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Does creating readOnly connections, when possible, free up resources in Postgres? |
| Date: | 2019-01-27 18:09:29 |
| Message-ID: | trinity-fdadc764-ace2-451d-8356-f06457fba5f9-1548612569362@3c-app-mailcom-bs03 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>I have an API server and I'm trying to be conscientious managing Postgres's resources carefully. On the client side, I have a Hikari Pool.</div>
<div><br/>
Usually when I need a connection, I simply create a default read/write connection, even if I don't plan to make any updates or inserts or hold any locks. But most of my database connections are in fact read-only.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I saw that when you create a JDBC connection, you can specify <code>readOnly=true</code>. Would doing so somehow help Postgres manage its other connections? Perhaps Postgres, knowing that a connection is <code>readOnly</code> and will never even attempt to do an update, will free up some internal resources for other connections. Is this accurate?</div>
<div> </div></div></body></html>
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| unknown_filename | text/html | 907 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Kremer | 2019-01-27 18:11:09 | Does creating readOnly connections, when possible, free up resources in Postgres? |
| Previous Message | Michel Pelletier | 2019-01-27 16:59:24 | Implementing an expanded object in C |