Re: Monitoring number of backends - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: Monitoring number of backends
Date
Msg-id 20131023021117.GJ2706@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Monitoring number of backends  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
List pgsql-general
* John R Pierce (pierce@hogranch.com) wrote:
> On 10/22/2013 1:13 PM, andy wrote:
> >No, actually, I don't think my connect overhead is huge.  My
> >apache and postgres are on the same box, and it connects using
> >unix socket. Perhaps if my apache on db were on different boxes it
> >would be a problem.
>
> each postgres connection, if you're not using a pool, requires a
> fork() of the postgres process.  fork is inherently an expensive
> process, especially for a moderately large and fairly complex piece
> of software like postgresql.

As Tom points out, it's really PG that makes the new connections slow;
fork(), while it can be slow on some platforms, really is small potatos
compared to PG opening a database, populating caches, etc.

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: James Sewell
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dumpall from a script
Next
From: BladeOfLight16
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug? Function with side effects not evaluated in CTE