Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Connection interesting question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)

From: sk(at)pobox(dot)com (Sanjay Arora)
To: <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Connection interesting question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)
Date: 2000-12-16 19:52:33
Message-ID: 3a3bc620.22496217@ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
Well, that essentially means that I have to deploy one more server
with MTS on it....isn't there anyway that I can do this thing on the
Linux server? If I have to deploy one more machine...I would like that
to be a Linux one ;-))

We are planning to shift our inhouse apps to Linux & Java (GUI using
SWING), so I would like to byepass MS, if thats at all possible
somehow. I understand, I would be able to pool my connections
serverside using Java, but presently I am stuck with ODBC.

In any case, if somebody can guide me how to calculate the connection
load & query load, I shall be very thankful.

With best regards.

PS: I agree that the XML idea is a terrific one and I shall definitely
wait till someone develops it....just wish I had the capability to do
it myself....anyways....someday ;-))

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:36:06 -0500, in
tci.lists.rdbms.postgresql.interfaces you wrote:

>I'm not saying anything about postgres not being able to handle that many
>connections.  I'm just saying it shouldn't if it doesn't have to.
>Adam Lang
>Systems Engineer
>Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
>To: "Adam Lang" <aalang(at)rutgersinsurance(dot)com>
>Cc: <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 12:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connection interesting question!!
>(was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Adam Lang wrote:
>> > Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:07:16 -0500
>> > From: Adam Lang <aalang(at)rutgersinsurance(dot)com>
>> > To: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> > Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connection interesting
>question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)
>> >
>> > As (I believe) Joel mentioned, you should use a distributed
>> > Clients shouldn't directly access your db server.  I believe it is
>> > "acceptable" if you are only looking at a small app that 10 people are
>> > to use, but 200 hundred clients is a lot.
>> >
>> > You should have postgres on one tier, your clients on one, and devise a
>> > middle tier that acts as a relay between your clients and postgres.
>> > way the 200 connections are not handled by postgres.  Postgres will only
>> > need to handle the 10 or so you pool with the middle tier.
>> Brrr, we have 128 persistent connections without any problem.
>> Just use -N option. I dont' remember maximum number of backends compiled
>> on default, but you could always change this number.
>> But you're right whe you speaking about 3-tire model. We're experimenting
>> with Corba and preliminary results are promising
>> Regards,
>> Oleg
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
>> Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
>> Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su,
>> phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

In response to


pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Alexaki SofiaDate: 2000-12-16 19:54:05
Subject: stream.eof exception
Previous:From: Adam LangDate: 2000-12-16 17:36:06
Subject: Re: Connection interesting question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group