Re: Connection Pooling, a year later

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От mlw
Тема Re: Connection Pooling, a year later
Дата
Msg-id 3C1EAB31.C5383D89@mohawksoft.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Connection Pooling, a year later  (Michael Owens <owensmk@earthlink.net>)
Ответы Re: Connection Pooling, a year later  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: Connection Pooling, a year later  ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
Список pgsql-hackers
I don't get the deal with connection pooling.

Sure, there are some efficiencies in reducing the number of back-end postgres
processes, but at what I see as a huge complication.

Having experimented with Oracle's connection pooling, and watching either it or
PHP(Apache) crash because of a bug in the query state tracking, I figured I'd
buy some more RAM and forget about the process memory and call myself lucky.

If you have a web server and use (in PHP) pg_pConnect, you will get a
postgresql process for each http process on your web servers.

Beside memory, are there any real costs associated with having a good number of
idle PostgreSQL processes sitting around? 

Tom, Bruce?


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Connection Pooling, a year later
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Deadlock condition in current sources