On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> If you're not using a connection pool, start using one.
>
> Do you really need 100 *active* working query threads at one time? Because
> if you do, you're going to need a scary-big disk subsystem and a lot of
> processors.
I see this issue and subsequent advice cross this list awfully
frequently. Is there in architectural reason why postgres itself
cannot pool incoming connections in order to eliminate the requirement
for an external pool?