Re: PgPool changes WAS: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: PgPool changes WAS: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Date: 2005-01-24 17:52:40
Message-ID: 200501240952.40183.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tatsuo,

> > Depends on your connection pooling software, I suppose. Most connection
> > pooling software only returns connections to the pool after a user has
> > been inactive for some period ... generally more than 3 seconds. So
> > connection continuity could be trusted.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "most connection pooling software", but I'm
> sure that pgpool behaves differently.

Ah, clarity problem here. I'm talking about connection pooling tools from
the client (webserver) side, such as Apache::DBI, PHP's pg_pconnect,
Jakarta's connection pools, etc. Not pooling on the database server side,
which is what pgPool provides.

Most of these tools allocate a database connection to an HTTP/middleware
client, and only release it after a specific period of inactivity. This
means that you *could* count on "web-user==connection" for purposes of
switching back and forth to the master -- as long as the connection-recycling
timeout were set higher than the pgPool switch-off period.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ragnar Hafstað 2005-01-24 18:24:05 Re: PgPool changes WAS: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL
Previous Message Marty Scholes 2005-01-24 15:45:57 Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering