On 29/05/2011 10:44 AM, Edison So wrote:
> Can anyone tell me that if the max_connections is above 100, the server
> will use pooling instead?
No. PostgreSQL does not have any built-in connection pooling, that was
the point of the suggestion, to advise people that they might want to
You should _consider_ using connection pooling instead of high numbers
of connections if your application is suitable. You will usually get
better throughput and often get better overall query latency if you
configure lower max_connections and then use a connection pool like
pgbouncer or PgPool-II.
Many people using high max_connections are using PHP and pg_pconnect.
Those people should particularly consider using a connection pool
instead of increasing max_connections . Most people who have performance
issues due to overload seem to have this setup.
A few features aren't suitable for pooling, including LISTEN/NOTIFY,
advisory locking, and named server-side prepared statements (explicit
> For all participants in this particular dsicuss, what is the reasonable
> value for max_connections without causing any harm to the Postgres 9.0
It's dependent on your workload, the capacity of your server, whether
requests come in batches or continuously, and all sorts of other things.
That's why Tom (wisely) pointed out that naming a number was a really
bad idea, even if it was intended only as a vague hint.
Some people on this list clearly run production servers with
max_connections in the several-hundreds without any problems. Others
have posted asking for help with server load, stalls and memory
exhaustion when using only 250 connections.
There's a big difference between an Amazon EC2 node and a real server
with a local, big, fast RAID10 array. The former might practically melt
down with a configuration that would not be enough to push the latter
even close to its limits.
I'm beginning to suspect that the comment I suggested is a bad idea as
currently constructed. Maybe the problem cannot be even hinted at in a
single short paragraph without creating more confusion than it solves.
Something is needed, but perhaps it should just a be a pointer to the
max_connections = 50
# Thinking of increasing this? Read http://some-documentation-url first!
Tech-related writing at http://soapyfrogs.blogspot.com/
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2011-05-29 08:45:24|
|Subject: Re: max_connections proposal|
|Previous:||From: Darren Duncan||Date: 2011-05-29 03:52:18|
|Subject: Re: timeouts on transactions etc?|