Re: Connection Pooling....an 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 Pooling....an interesting question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)
>
> As (I believe) Joel mentioned, you should use a distributed architecture.
> 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 going
> 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. That
> 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, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83