Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

From: Peter Mount <peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Date: 1998-04-29 15:18:22
Message-ID: 714F8949628ED1119E0F0060082C52F50951D5@vesta.maidstone.gov.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
I have had a report from someone using Servlets, that they are opening
something like 5 to 10 connections from a single Java Servlet, which then
brokers them to clients.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org
[mailto:owner-pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 3:28 PM
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org; pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE
protocol changes

In the current system architecture, much the easiest way to execute
concurrent queries is to open up more than one connection.  There's
nothing that says a frontend process can't fire up multiple backend
processes.  I think this is probably sufficient, because I don't
foresee such a thing becoming really popular anyway.


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-04-29 16:04:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Previous:From: Jose' Soares Da SilvaDate: 1998-04-29 15:04:26
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-04-29 16:04:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Previous:From: Jose' Soares Da SilvaDate: 1998-04-29 15:04:26
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group