| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: idle connection timeout ... |
| Date: | 2002-10-25 15:46:47 |
| Message-ID: | 2935.1035560807@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Basically, total connections is to be set larger than you think you will
> ever need, while you expect per-db to be hit, and if something keeps
> trying to connect and failing, we may get very bad connection
> performance for other backends.
Hmm, I see your point. A per-db limit *could* be useful even if it's
set high enough that you don't expect it to be hit ... but most likely
people would try to use it in a way that it wouldn't be very efficient
compared to a client-side solution.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-25 15:52:36 | Re: idle connection timeout ... |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-25 15:19:14 | Re: idle connection timeout ... |