| From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "August Zajonc" <junk-pgsql(at)aontic(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Re: Client Side Connection Pooling | 
| Date: | 2001-08-08 03:25:15 | 
| Message-ID: | m31ymnjkro.fsf@belphigor.mcnaught.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
"August Zajonc" <junk-pgsql(at)aontic(dot)com> writes:
> One possible pooling model is to have a bunch of worker connections opened
> to the pgsql instance. Then as sql statements arrive the they are routed
> through an available connection that is open but not doing any work. So 100
> inbound connection may be "multiplexed" to 10 outbound connections to the
> pgsql instance.
[very lucid explanation snipped]
Thanks, makes perfect sense.  Really, almost any pooling system can be 
looked at that way, since you have N threads that may need
connections, and M connections available.  Of course a thread needs to 
hang on to a connection throughout any transactions it creates.
-Doug
-- 
Free Dmitry Sklyarov! 
http://www.freesklyarov.org/ 
We will return to our regularly scheduled signature shortly.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2001-08-08 12:46:10 | RE: CURRENT OF cursor without OIDs | 
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-08-08 01:22:39 | Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal |