Re: PgPool changes WAS: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: gnari(at)simnet(dot)is
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PgPool changes WAS: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL
Date: 2005-01-25 00:21:09
Message-ID: 20050125.092109.71083385.t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 09:52 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > [about keeping connections open in web context]
> > Ah, clarity problem here. I'm talking about connection pooling tools from
> > the client (webserver) side, such as Apache::DBI, PHP's pg_pconnect,
> > Jakarta's connection pools, etc. Not pooling on the database server side,
> > which is what pgPool provides.
>
> note that these sometimes do not provide connection pooling as such,
> just persistent connections (Apache::DBI)

Right. Same thing can be said to pg_pconnect.

> > Most of these tools allocate a database connection to an HTTP/middleware
> > client, and only release it after a specific period of inactivity. This
> > means that you *could* count on "web-user==connection" for purposes of
> > switching back and forth to the master -- as long as the connection-recycling
> > timeout were set higher than the pgPool switch-off period.
>
> no. you can only count on web-server-process==connection, but not
> web-user==connection, unless you can garantee that the same user
> client always connects to same web-server process.

I have same opinion.

> am i missing something ?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-01-25 00:26:26 Re: reltuples after vacuum and analyze
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2005-01-24 23:45:51 Re: PgPool changes WAS: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL