I've recently succeeded in lobbying my sysadmins to upgrade from 7.2.0
to 7.4.8 (thanks to everyone for the advice on how to leverage this).
I'm now fiddling with some of the performance parameters, and I'm
wondering about max_connections. The default appears to be 100 - this
is at least an o
I need help to alter max_connections em my database, this parameter stay in
defalt MAX_CONNECTIONS=100
I want to change for MAX_CONNECTIONS=300.
about parameters below, need to change anything?
1 -sysctl.conf
kernel.shmmax = 68719476736
kernel.shmall = 4294967296
# - Memory -
2-Postgresql.conf
Hello,
we are using SCO OpenServer6 and Postgresql 8.1.4.
We increased the parameter max_connections in the postgresql.conf to 300.
In Section 16.4.1 of the dokumentation we try to find out how to adjust
depending parameters. But we can't figure it out.
What would be reasonable values for the
"John D. Burger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm now fiddling with some of the performance parameters, and I'm
> wondering about max_connections. The default appears to be 100 - this
> is at least an order of magnitude higher than I need. Would much be
> saved by dropping this down to 10 or
There might be a very cheap and simple way to help reduce the number of
people running into problems because they set massive max_connections
values that their server cannot cope with instead of using pooling.
In the default postgresql.conf, change:
max_connections = 100 # (c
paulo matadr wrote:
> I need help to alter max_connections em my database, this parameter
> stay in defalt MAX_CONNECTIONS=100
> I want to change for MAX_CONNECTIONS=300. about parameters below,
> need to change anything?
>
> 1 -sysctl.conf
>
> kernel.shmmax = 68719476736
> kernel.shmall = 429496
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> There might be a very cheap and simple way to help reduce the number of
> people running into problems because they set massive max_connections values
> that their server cannot cope with instead of using pooling.
>
> In the default postgresq
Craig Ringer writes:
> max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
> # WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
> # should probably be using a connection pool instead. See:
> # http://wiki.postgresql.org/max_connections
This gives the impress
On 05/26/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer writes:
max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
# WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
# should probably be using a connection pool instead. See:
# http://wiki.postgresql.org/max_
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 05/26/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Craig Ringer writes:
>>> max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
>>> # WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
>>> # should probably be using a connection pool instead. See:
>
2011/5/27 Tom Lane :
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> On 05/26/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Craig Ringer writes:
max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
# WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
# should probably be using a con
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> Best performance is often obtained with the number of _active_ connections
> in the 10s to 30s on commonplace hardware. I'd want to use "hundreds" -
> because mailing list posts etc suggest that people start running into
> problems under load
On 05/25/2011 10:58 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart)
# WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you
# should probably be using a connection pool instead. See:
# http://wiki.postgresql.org/max_connections
#
# Not
Can anyone tell me that if the max_connections is above 100, the server will
use pooling instead?
For all participants in this particular dsicuss, what is the reasonable
value for max_connections without causing any harm to the Postgres 9.0
server.
I am a nonvice Postgres user so any advice is al
On 29/05/2011 10:44 AM, Edison So wrote:
Can anyone tell me that if the max_connections is above 100, the server
will use pooling instead?
No. PostgreSQL does not have any built-in connection pooling, that was
the point of the suggestion, to advise people that they might want to
consider it.
On 29/05/2011 4:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 29/05/2011 10:44 AM, Edison So wrote:
Can anyone tell me that if the max_connections is above 100, the server
will use pooling instead?
No. PostgreSQL does not have any built-in connection pooling, that was
the point of the suggestion, to advise pe
Thanks Graig for your comprehensive explanation although I do not
understanding everything you said such as pgbouncer and pg_connect. I have
just started to use Postgres 9.0 with no prior training.
I live in Canada and where I live has no instructor-led training on Postgres
9.0 with replication. C
On 05/30/2011 03:26 AM, Edison So wrote:
Thanks Graig for your comprehensive explanation although I do not
understanding everything you said such as pgbouncer and pg_connect. I
have just started to use Postgres 9.0 with no prior training.
Google is great :-)
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/curr
Thank Graig for the links. You have been very helpful.
When I get time, I will definitely read over the materials to get familar
with Postgres.
Have a wonderful night.
Edison
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> On 05/30/2011 03:26 AM, Edison So wrote:
>
>> Thanks Graig for y
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> OK, maybe word it as "If you're considering raising max_connections much
> above 100, ..." ?
I think it can be even shorter and to the point:
If you're considering raising max_connections consider pooling instead.
--
Sent via pgsql-general m
12 de Novembro de 2008 14:41:06
Assunto: Re: [ADMIN] [GENERAL] MAX_CONNECTIONS ??
paulo matadr wrote:
> I need help to alter max_connections em my database, this parameter
> stay in defalt MAX_CONNECTIONS=100
> I want to change for MAX_CONNECTIONS=300. about parameters below,
> n
21 matches
Mail list logo
