On 31/10/2017 12:56, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>
>
> On 31/10/17 10:08, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
>> Hello Vladimir, thanx
>>
>> On 31/10/2017 10:30, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>>> Achilleas>So if say we need 5 connections max for the most complex app to work, and we have 200 users, then at peak
time,the total number of connections would have to be raised to 1000.
>>>
>>> Pools can shrink, so you do not have to raise total number of connections to 1000 unless you truly expect 1000
concurrentconnections.
>> I know, but we still risk having our max_connections exceeded. And this is not scaleable.
>
> That's true, but if you have a pgbouncer in front of PostgreSQL (you should) and the connections are used wisely
(i.e.they are returned as soon as they finish the job, they don't sit idle) this
> is no longer a problem.
That would be a blessing if pgbouncer supported LDAP .
>
>
> Álvaro
>
--
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
--
Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc
