Michael Devogelaere wrote:
> > As the doc says, all done totally untuned. And CRASH by
> > itself doesn't say anything. A little more precise would be
> > good.
> Ok: the client reported something like:
> "Unexpected EOF from PostgreSQL-backend". When looking with ps aux, i noted
> that all postmaster-childs where <defunct>. I couldn't connect anymore with
> psql (i aborted the test and no other processes tried to access the database
> since my machine was in single user mode). After killing the master process and
> restarting, the database worked fine.
Looks like leftover or not fast enough reaped old connections
that fill up all possible backend slots (default max 32).
Persistent connections is definitely something that
> > Other than that, once again one of these mostly read only
> > scenarios with simple queries where it is well known that a
> > real database cannot compete.
> True: i planned two tests. One big read-only test and then another which would
> add simulation of pop-logins. After a successful pop-login the field
> 'lastlogin' is updated. But i didn't run that test since postgresql already
> failed the simple read-only test.
As said, "simple read-only" is not really something you want
a full featured RDBMS for. Maybe you are better off with a
simple and stupid system on the feature level of gdbm or
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Justin Clift||Date: 2002-01-24 16:48:40|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL crashes with Qmail-SQL|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2002-01-24 16:34:29|
|Subject: Re: Savepoints|