Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections

From: Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections
Date: 1998-06-03 23:50:28
Message-ID: 13685.57668.513797.152830@web0.speakeasy.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
that's a really cool idea.  I think I'll try that.

On Wed, 3 June 1998, at 18:46:02, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> postmaster starts up to listen for connections, and then starts up its own
> backend to handle database queries?  So, on a quiet system, you would have
> two processes running, one postmaster, and one postgres...
> 
> basically, the idea is that postmaster can't talk to a table, only
> postgres can...so, setup postmaster the same way that any other interface
> is setup...connect to a backend and pass its transactions through that
> way...

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Brett McCormickDate: 1998-06-03 23:53:25
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-06-03 22:16:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group