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

Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL

From: Tom Samplonius <tom(at)sdf(dot)com>
To: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL
Date: 2001-01-03 04:32:03
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.05.10101022030040.8582-100000@misery.sdf.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-interfaces by date

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

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