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

Re: Problem with asynchronous connect in 8.0.1

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Chad Robinson <taskswap(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Problem with asynchronous connect in 8.0.1
Date: 2005-02-09 03:36:58
Message-ID: 87pszae751.fsf@stark.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
Chad Robinson <taskswap(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:

> It seems so. I have to have this many connections, because for security and
> privacy reasons the processes involved are isolated. There are about
> 1000-1200 per box, 4-8 boxes, depending on how I load-balance things. Unless
> you know some way to REDUCE memory usage per Postgres client connection,
> we'll see how things go with pgpool.

It sounds to me like you might even want something more constricted than
pgpool. Perhaps you want to write some sort of daemon that keeps a single
connection to the database and performs these short simple queries in response
to simple requests it receives from the clients.

This could actually improve security since it would limit what types of
queries can be performed and what data can be retrieved. You could use
something like ldap or snmp or even just a simple xdr rpc call instead of
writing database queries into your application.

-- 
greg


In response to

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-09 04:49:13
Subject: Re: Can you bind output variables?
Previous:From: Guy RouillierDate: 2005-02-09 00:29:54
Subject: Dynamic column name in pgsql trigger function

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