Jeff wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2004, at 1:29 AM, Martin Foster wrote:
>
>> I am currently making use of Apache::DBI which overrides the
>> DBI::disconnect call and keeps a pool of active connections for use
>> when need be. Since it offloads the pooling to the webserver, it
>> seems more advantageous then pgpool which while being able to run on a
>> external system is not adding another layer of complexity.
>>
>
> Apache::DBI is not the same sort of a pool as pgpool. DB connections
> are not shared among all your apache children (A common misconception).
> So if you have 300 apache kids you can have have 300 db connections.
> With pgpool connections are shared among all of them so even though you
> have 300 kids you only have say 32 db connections.
>
Seems that you are right, never noticed that from the documentation
before. I always assumed it had something to do with the long
lasting/persistent scripts that would remain in transactions for
extended periods of time.
Here is an odd question. While the server run 7.4.x, the client
connects with 7.3.x. Would this in itself make a difference in
performance as the protocols are different? At least based from
pgpool's documentation.
Martin Foster
Creator/Designer Ethereal Realms
martin@ethereal-realms.org
