Michael Devogelaere wrote:
> > As the doc says, all done totally untuned. And CRASH by
> > itself doesn't say anything. A little more precise would be
> > good.
> Ok: the client reported something like:
> "Unexpected EOF from PostgreSQL-backend". When looking with ps aux, i noted
> that all postmaster-childs where <defunct>. I couldn't connect anymore with
> psql (i aborted the test and no other processes tried to access the database
> since my machine was in single user mode). After killing the master process and
> restarting, the database worked fine.
Looks like leftover or not fast enough reaped old connections that fill up all possible backend slots (default
max 32). Persistent connections is definitely something that PostgreSQL likes.
> >
> > Other than that, once again one of these mostly read only
> > scenarios with simple queries where it is well known that a
> > real database cannot compete.
> True: i planned two tests. One big read-only test and then another which would
> add simulation of pop-logins. After a successful pop-login the field
> 'lastlogin' is updated. But i didn't run that test since postgresql already
> failed the simple read-only test.
As said, "simple read-only" is not really something you want a full featured RDBMS for. Maybe you are better
offwith a simple and stupid system on the feature level of gdbm or MySql.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
