On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:14:27AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > The assumption that each connection won't use lots of work_mem is also > false, I think, especially in these days of connection poolers. > > > I don't follow that. Why would using a connection pooler change the multiples > of work_mem that a connection would use?
I assume that a connection pooler would keep processes running longer, so even if they were not all using work_mem, they would have that memory mapped into the process, and perhaps swapped out. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
