Re: Is this pgbouncer configuration suitable for a production environment with hundreds of databases?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Lisandro <rostagnolisandro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is this pgbouncer configuration suitable for a production environment with hundreds of databases?
Date: 2017-04-05 22:57:26
Message-ID: CAKFQuwb=a41q-07GXd-4j8dqrRNOvPchSUX0nVzjo4EmFO7i8A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Lisandro <rostagnolisandro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> The question is: can I set default_pool_size=0

​ISTM parameter would be better named (i.e., mentally remembered as)
"default_maximum_pool_size" ... and a zero for that seems like you'll
render your system inoperable since:

"Notice that I don't set a pool_size for every database, but instead I use
the general default_pool_size.

> *My goal is to find a pgbouncer configuration that allows me to add
> databases without worring about reaching the postgresql max_connection=200
> limit. How can I achieve that?*

The presence of open issue # 103 on GitHub implies that what you want to do
is not possible.

https://github.com/pgbouncer/pgbouncer/issues/103

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-04-05 23:14:53 Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Previous Message Lisandro 2017-04-05 22:29:03 Is this pgbouncer configuration suitable for a production environment with hundreds of databases?