| From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Geoffrey <lists(at)serioustechnology(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgpool |
| Date: | 2010-06-29 13:27:37 |
| Message-ID: | 4c29f4cb.c84de70a.5898.7f19@mx.google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:07:33AM -0400, Geoffrey wrote:
> A couple of questions regarding pgpool:
>
> Is there a problem with using multiple connection pools for the same
> database? Point being, we might want to give a higher number of
> connections to one group of users then another. I can see doing this by
> having separate connection pools. The higher priority users have a
> larger connection pool.
That's entirely reasonable.
> Is there a problem with using connection pooling and traditional
> connections to connect to the same database?
Nope.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Tolley | 2010-06-29 13:37:36 | Re: No PL/PHP ? Any reason? |
| Previous Message | A. Kretschmer | 2010-06-29 13:24:53 | Re: alter table schema, default sequences stay the same |