On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Samuel Gendler <sgendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Craig Ringer > > <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If you're not using a connection pool, start using one. > > > I see this issue and subsequent advice cross this list awfully > > frequently. Is there in architectural reason why postgres itself > > cannot pool incoming connections in order to eliminate the requirement > > for an external pool? > > Perhaps not, but there's no obvious benefit either. Since there's > More Than One Way To Do It, it seems more practical to keep that as a > separate problem that can be solved by a choice of add-on packages. One example where you need a separate connection pool is pooling really large number of connections, which you may want to do on another host than the database itself is running. For example pgbouncer had to add option to use incoming unix sockets, because they run into the IP socket port number limit (a little above 31k, or more exactly 63k/2. And unix sockets can be used only on local host . -- Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability Services, Consulting and Training -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
