On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, mlw wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > Does this requested chagne have to do with Apache or PostgreSQL?
> > 
> I suspect it is a request that live postgresql processes can linger
> around after a connection is completed and be re-assigned to a new
> connection as soon as one comes along. This will save the startup cost
> of a new postgresql process. This is what apache does.

  I don't think is really going to provide much of an impact.  Postgres
has to do a lot more initialization per session than Apache.  Mainly
because Postgres has to deal with a stateful protocol, not a stateless one
like Apache.  Besides, as already has been tested, session startup time is
minimal.

> -- 
> http://www.mohawksoft.com

Tom

In response to

• Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL at 2001-01-02 13:31:46 from mlw

Responses

• Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL at 2001-01-03 06:07:16 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-01-03 06:07:16
	Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2001-01-03 02:24:12
	Subject: Re: GNU readline and BSD license

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-01-03 06:07:16
	Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL
Previous:	From: Michael Davis	Date: 2001-01-03 00:54:17
	Subject: RE: ODBC-Problem