On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > I have received a question via the Advocacy site and I am not
> > knowledgeable enough to answer. Can you help?
> >
> > The question is: can PostgreSQL handle between 10'000 and 40'000
> > simultaneous connections? The persone asking the question has to
> > choose between Oracle and PostgreSQL, and my guess is that they
> > would be relieved if they could go with PostgreSQL.
> >
> > Do you have any additional advice I could transmit to this person
> > about handling that many connections. I'm sure any help we can
> > provide will be an additional selling point.
>
> Actually, this begs the question: are there any "reverse DB" proxy
> servers around that people have used? Having a reverse libpq proxy
> server would _rock_. Some light weight multi-threaded proxy that
> relays active connections to the backend and holds idle connections
> more efficiently than PostgreSQL... well... it'd be a life saver in
> sooooo many situations. Granted it'd have its short comings
> (connections would persist to the backend along transactions, once
> committed, the front end would "detatch" from the backend that it was
> using), but this is achitecturally similar to what MS and ORA do to
> handle gazillions of connections to a database that in reality, can
> only handle a few hundred (maybe a thousand or two) active
> connections.
I thin usogres does this. not sure though, I haven't played with it, just
heard of it.
