Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Karl DeBisschop <karl(at)debisschop(dot)net>
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: 2001-01-02 07:16:53
Message-ID: 200101020716.CAA09459@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

Does this requested chagne have to do with Apache or PostgreSQL?

w wrote:
> >
> > I have been asked by the major PHP developer Rasmus Lerdorf to see
> > if
> > the PostgreSQL/PHP interface needs any improvements.
> >
> > Is the current PostgreSQL interface module in PHP adequate? Does it
> > support all the current libpq features?
> >
> > The only problem we have run into (and I have heard of others having this
> > problem also) is with persistent connections. I have seen discussion on
> > persistent connection problems but I'm not sure the problem was ever
> > resolved. The problem we have seen is that when using persistent
> > connections the web server doesn't seen to reuse the connections or somthing
> > to that effect. The result being that we eventually use up our postgres
> > limit of 48 connections and nothing can connect to postgre anymore. It is
> > possible that this is a configuration problem that we haven't sufficiently
> > investigated, but I meniton it because I have heard other talk of this.
> > Anyone have more information?
>
> Persistent connections behave exactly as advertised. Each apache process
> sets up and maintains persistent connections as needed. The problem is
> that for a typical web server, there are so many subprocesses that
> persistent connections are probably consume more resources than they
> save, unless they are combined with connection pooling across ALL the
> apache processes.
>
> Implementation of connection pooling is by far the most serious
> shortcoming of the current implementation, IMHO.
>
> I would dearly love to see this addressed as our postgresql database
> sees connections from about 300 servers for 6 databases. Since our
> postgresql server cannot support 1800 simultaneous active backends,
> persistent connections are useless without pooling. So instead we
> initiate 10 or more backends every second for generally very simple
> queries. Most of the queries are pretty simple, so I would not be at all
> surprised if we sent more system resources opening connections than we
> do actually answering queries
>
> --
> Karl DeBisschop kdebisschop(at)alert(dot)infoplease(dot)com
> Learning Network/Information Please http://www.infoplease.com
> Netsaint Plugin Developer kdebisschop(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-01-02 07:30:07 Re: [patch] src/include/storage/s_lock.h
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-01-02 07:11:52 Re: [HACKERS] Re: Inheritance docs error.

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-01-02 07:44:58 Re: wrong values in ODBC parameters?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-02 04:59:56 Re: PHP and PostgreSQL