| From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | owensmk(at)earthlink(dot)net |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |
| Date: | 2001-12-18 02:34:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3C1EAB31.C5383D89@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I don't get the deal with connection pooling.
Sure, there are some efficiencies in reducing the number of back-end postgres
processes, but at what I see as a huge complication.
Having experimented with Oracle's connection pooling, and watching either it or
PHP(Apache) crash because of a bug in the query state tracking, I figured I'd
buy some more RAM and forget about the process memory and call myself lucky.
If you have a web server and use (in PHP) pg_pConnect, you will get a
postgresql process for each http process on your web servers.
Beside memory, are there any real costs associated with having a good number of
idle PostgreSQL processes sitting around?
Tom, Bruce?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-18 03:29:01 | Deadlock condition in current sources |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-18 01:16:59 | Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |