From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, owensmk(at)earthlink(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |
Date: | 2001-12-18 16:24:31 |
Message-ID: | 3C1F6DBF.2040000@pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, that is assuming you are using PHP. If you are using something
> else, you connection pooling in there too. All those client interfaces
> reimplementing connection pooling seems like a waste to me.
Effective pooling's pretty specific to your environment, though, so any
general mechanism would have to provide a wide-ranging suite of
parameters governing the number to pool, how long each handle should
live, what to do if a handle's released by a client while in the midst
of a transaction (AOLserver rolls back the transaction, other clients
might want to do something else, i.e. fire a callback or the like), etc etc.
I think it would be fairly complex and for those high-throughput
applications already written with client-side pooling no improvement.
And those are the only applications that need it.
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2001-12-18 16:29:10 | Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |
Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2001-12-18 16:14:57 | Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |