Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However even if you reuse existing database connections, you nonetheless are
> still context switching between hundreds or potentially thousands of threads
> of execution. The lighter-weight that context switch is, the faster it'll be
> able to do that.
> I
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think there is some confusion between "many concurrent connections + short
> transactions" and "many connect / disconnect + short transactions" in some of
> this discussion.
I was intended to clarify that but left it out. In fact I think that's
preci
Greg Stark wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But database is not webserver. It is not suppose to handle tons of concurrent
requests. That is a fundamental difference.
And in one fell swoop you've dismissed the entire OLTP database industry.
Have you ever called a t
Davide Romanini wrote:
Barry Lind ha scritto:
The charSet= option will no longer work with the 7.3 driver talking to
a 7.3 server, since character set translation is now performed by the
server (for performance reasons) in that senario.
The correct solution here is to convert the database to
Michael Paesold wrote:
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > In any case, why don't we get a patch against 7.3, and make an
> > > announcement and let people who are interested use it and test it. With
> > > in-field testing it'd probably be safe enough. :)
> >
> > Here it is.
> >
>
> [patch... skipping]
>
Neil Conway wrote:
> Furthermore, IIRC PostgreSQL's relatively slow connection creation time
> has as much to do with other per-backend initialization work as it does
> with the time to actually fork() a new backend. If there is interest in
> optimizing backend startup time, my guess would be that
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 17:32, Kevin Brown wrote:
> The big overhead in the process model on most platforms is in creation
> and destruction of processes. PostgreSQL has a relatively high
> connection startup cost. But there are ways of dealing with this
> problem other than threading, namely the u
Jan Wieck wrote:
> > In any case, why don't we get a patch against 7.3, and make an
> > announcement and let people who are interested use it and test it. With
> > in-field testing it'd probably be safe enough. :)
>
> Here it is.
>
[patch... skipping]
I applied the patch to a 7.3.2 installation,
