Re: Connection Pooling, a year later - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From mlw
Subject Re: Connection Pooling, a year later
Date
Msg-id 3C1EAB31.C5383D89@mohawksoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Connection Pooling, a year later  (Michael Owens <owensmk@earthlink.net>)
Responses Re: Connection Pooling, a year later
Re: Connection Pooling, a year later
List pgsql-hackers
I don't get the deal with connection pooling.

Sure, there are some efficiencies in reducing the number of back-end postgres
processes, but at what I see as a huge complication.

Having experimented with Oracle's connection pooling, and watching either it or
PHP(Apache) crash because of a bug in the query state tracking, I figured I'd
buy some more RAM and forget about the process memory and call myself lucky.

If you have a web server and use (in PHP) pg_pConnect, you will get a
postgresql process for each http process on your web servers.

Beside memory, are there any real costs associated with having a good number of
idle PostgreSQL processes sitting around? 

Tom, Bruce?


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Connection Pooling, a year later
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Deadlock condition in current sources