Hmmm - so to bring one more idea here...
The usage of each of these systems will be different on different days
- Monday may have high usage on one or two databases and Wednesday may
be high on 20 others. This makes me thing that configuring thigs this
way would mean that pgpool would be limiting one connection for each
database / user combination - whereas leaving the connections standard
would mean that if one set was busy it could take multiple connections
simultaneously.
This seems to be another knock against pgpool - or am I way off?
-John
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:06:12 +0100, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> John Cunningham wrote:
> > concerned that if I drop the number of connections to less than the
> > number of databases I have, that pgpool would open the limit of
> > connections, hold them open and not allow any connections to the
> > remaining databases. Is this a concern? If I set up pgpool will I
> > have to have the same number of connections as I have databases?
>
> That depends on how you configure pgpool. pgpool is not aware of the
> connection limit count in the PostgreSQL server, so it will happily
> open connections until there are no more slots available.
>
> pgpool will require max_pool * num_init_children connection slots.
> max_pool should be the number of database/user combinations you use
> (300 in your case, assuming only one database user account), and
> num_init_children should be on the order of how many concurrent
> connections you expect to each combination ("several" in your case).
> So you should have at least 300 * several PostgreSQL connection slots,
> which is probably more than the 1000 or so that is the default.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>
