> > it's very plausible to imagine a world where a backend hands an
> > idle connection back to the parent process for safe
> > keeping/process load balancing.
>
> And your current database, user authorization, prepared statements,
> SET values, cached plpgsql plans, etc etc go where exactly?
No
Sean Chittenden wrote:
PostgreSQL will never be single proc, multi-threaded, and I don't
think it should be for reliability's sake. See my above post,
however, as I think I may have a better way to handle "lots of
connections" without using threads. -sc
never is a VERY long time ... Also
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it's very plausible to imagine a world where a backend hands an idle
> connection back to the parent process for safe keeping/process load
> balancing.
And your current database, user authorization, prepared statements,
SET values, cached plpgsql plans
> >PostgreSQL will never be single proc, multi-threaded, and I don't
> >think it should be for reliability's sake. See my above post,
> >however, as I think I may have a better way to handle "lots of
> >connections" without using threads. -sc
>
> never is a VERY long time ... Also, the single p
Sean Chittenden wrote:
PostgreSQL will never be single proc, multi-threaded, and I don't
think it should be for reliability's sake. See my above post,
however, as I think I may have a better way to handle "lots of
connections" without using threads. -sc
never is a VERY long time ... Also, the s
> > Some light weight multi-threaded proxy that relays active
> > connections to the backend and holds idle connections more
> > efficiently than PostgreSQL...
>
> What excuse is there for postgres connections being heavyweight to
> begin with? The only real resource they ought to represent is a
> > > But I'm sure that with a few tweaks to the code here and there
> > > it's doable, just don't expect it to work "out of the box".
> >
> > I think you'd be sticking your neck out to assume that 10k
> > concurrent connections would perform well, even after tweaking.
> > I'd worry first about whe
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some light weight multi-threaded proxy that
> relays active connections to the backend and holds idle connections
> more efficiently than PostgreSQL...
What excuse is there for postgres connections being heavyweight to begin with?
The only real reso
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I'm sure that with a few tweaks to the code here and there it's
> > doable, just don't expect it to work "out of the box".
>
> I think you'd be sticking your neck out to assume that 10k concurrent
> connec
> > > There are 1000's of references to postgresql and connection pooling.
> > >
> > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pooling+postgresql
> > >
> > > Maybe somthing there will work.
> >
> > Those are all application level connection pooling links. I'm
> > thinking about some
On Friday 18 July 2003 01:28 pm, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > There are 1000's of references to postgresql and connection pooling.
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pooling+postgresql
> >
> > Maybe somthing there will work.
>
> Those are all application level connection p
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I'm sure that with a few tweaks to the code here and there it's
> doable, just don't expect it to work "out of the box".
I think you'd be sticking your neck out to assume that 10k concurrent
connections would perform well, even after tweaking. I'
> There are 1000's of references to postgresql and connection pooling.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pooling+postgresql
>
> Maybe somthing there will work.
Those are all application level connection pooling links. I'm
thinking about something that's done on the data
Sean Chittenden wrote:
I have received a question via the Advocacy site and I am not
knowledgeable enough to answer. Can you help?
The question is: can PostgreSQL handle between 10'000 and 40'000
simultaneous connections? The persone asking the question has to
choose between Oracle and PostgreSQL,
14 matches
Mail list logo
