From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Clayton Vernon" <cvernon(at)enron(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: newbie ?'s |
Date: | 2001-04-26 15:31:41 |
Message-ID: | 16360.988299101@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Clayton Vernon" <cvernon(at)enron(dot)com> writes:
> 1) Do you have to specify in advance the full number of processes, or does =
> it dynamically manage them ala Apache?
You have to set an upper limit on the max number of server processes.
This is mainly to prevent Postgres from taking over your system ;-).
Hopefully you can set it high enough to not be a problem in practice.
> 2) If your site was busy, will requests queue up civilly or will they typic=
> ally bomb right away if they can't find an idle process.
Connections will be refused if the server process limit is reached.
> 5) This seemingly full-fledged password overhead is worrisome. Is this tedi=
> ous to manage in practice? Can the same (quasi-generic) user be reading the=
> database from many simultaneous processes?
There are several different options for authentication methods ---
probably you can find one that matches your combination of security and
simplicity concerns. Yes, the same userid can be used for multiple
connections at once.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | J.H.M. Dassen Ray | 2001-04-26 15:32:02 | Re: Why Size Of Data Backed Up Varies Significantly In SQL 6.5? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-04-26 15:28:53 | Re: I am now Linux and PostgreSQL user, have a question |