Thanks. There are several of these out there, which JDBCConnectionPool do you recomend?
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Peter Courcoux wrote: > Eric, > > It is a while since I've used this but I'm sure that there was an issue > with the torque connection pool which produced this problem. The > solution, if I recall correctly was to use the JDBCConnectionPool > instead. > > I think this problem comes up repeatedly in the mail list archives. > > I hope that this helps. > > Regards, > > Peter > > On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 20:57, Eric Lalande wrote: > > I am using the Torque connection pool with Postgresql 7.3 on jvm 1.4 and > > Redhat 9. I have set the number of defaultMaxConnections to 32 and the > > postgresql max_connections to 100 as well as setting the shared_buffers to > > 200. This is for test - I wanted the postgres number to be higher than > > the torque number. > > > > After putting a load on this the connections in the torque connection pool > > will grow to 100 eventually running out of available connections. > > > > Also this is torque 3.1 and the application is on Turbine 2.2. > > > > Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me out. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
