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?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-12-18 03:29:01|
|Subject: Deadlock condition in current sources|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-12-18 01:16:59|
|Subject: Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |