Re: max_connections proposal - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: max_connections proposal
Date
Msg-id 13391.1306417724@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to max_connections proposal  (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>)
Responses Re: max_connections proposal  (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>)
List pgsql-general
Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> 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 impression that performance is great at 100 and falls off
a cliff at 101, which is both incorrect and likely to lower peoples'
opinion of the software.  I'd suggest wording more like "if you're
considering raising max_connections into the thousands, you should
probably use a connection pool instead".  And I agree with Merlin that a
wiki pointer is inappropriate.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Is there any problem with pg_notify and memory consumption?
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Miidpoint between two long/lat points? (earthdistance?)