2009/5/29 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2009/5/29 Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx>: > >>> if it is implemented somewhere else better, shouldn't that make it >>> obvious that postgresql should solve it internally ? It is really >>> annoying to hear all the time that you should add additional path of >>> execution to already complex stack, and rely on more code to handle >>> something (poolers). >> >> OTOH, you're always free to submit a patch. > :P > > I thought that's where the difference is between postgresql and oracle > mostly, ability to handle more transactions and better scalability . Both Oracle and PostgreSQL have fairly heavy backend processes, and running hundreds of them on either database is a mistake. Sure, Oracle can handle more transactions and scales a bit better, but no one wants to have to buy a 128 way E15K to handle the load rather than implementing connection pooling. Show me an Oracle server with 5000 live, active connections and I'll show you a VERY large and expensive cluster of machines. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
