From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | "List, Postgres" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_connections proposal |
Date: | 2011-05-26 23:30:54 |
Message-ID: | 25366.1306452654@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> On 05/26/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Craig Ringer<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>>> max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
>>> # WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
>>> # should probably be using a connection pool instead. See:
>>> # http://wiki.postgresql.org/max_connections
>> This gives the impression that performance is great at 100 and falls off
>> a cliff at 101, which is both incorrect and likely to lower peoples'
>> opinion of the software.
> Fair call; the use of a specific value is misleading.
>> I'd suggest wording more like "if you're
>> considering raising max_connections into the thousands, you should
>> probably use a connection pool instead".
> Best performance is often obtained with the number of _active_
> connections in the 10s to 30s on commonplace hardware. I'd want to use
> "hundreds" - because mailing list posts etc suggest that people start
> running into problems under load at the 400-500 mark, and more
> importantly because it's well worth moving to pooling _way_ before that
> point.
OK, maybe word it as "If you're considering raising max_connections much
above 100, ..." ?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Carlos Fuentes | 2011-05-27 00:17:06 | unnest with generate_subscripts and same array |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2011-05-26 23:22:14 | Re: max_connections proposal |