On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:14:27AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The assumption that each connection won't use lots of work_mem is also
> false, I think, especially in these days of connection poolers.
>
>
> I don't follow that. Why would using a connection pooler change the multiples
> of work_mem that a connection would use?
I assume that a connection pooler would keep processes running longer,
so even if they were not all using work_mem, they would have that memory
mapped into the process, and perhaps swapped out.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
