Thanks for that clarification. On Friday, May 17, 2013 2:22:14 AM UTC-5, Christophe Pettus wrote: > > > On May 17, 2013, at 12:57 AM, Joe Jasinski wrote: > > > So I hear that Django 1.6 will ship with a connection pooler built in, > which is awesome. Does this remove the need to have a stand-alone service > such as pgbouncer, or am I misunderstanding how the new built-in connection > will work? > > Aymeric can give the definitive story, but in my view it's a very handy > component, but doesn't (and wasn't intended to) replace a stand-alone > connection pooler. > > The 1.6 connection pool solves the issue of Django opening a new > connection on each request by reusing connections at the thread level. It > doesn't share connections across multiple processes in the same machine, > for example, nor across application servers. For that, you need a > stand-alone pooler. > > It also doesn't help the common problem of multiplexing a lot of potential > application-side connections down to the number of active server-side > connections that the database server can actually handle. And, of course, > if you're using the advanced features of (say) pgPool II, there's a lot of > stuff that an app-side pool won't help. > > So, it's a great and very useful feature, but a stand alone pooler > definitely has a role still. > > -- > -- Christophe Pettus > x...@thebuild.com <javascript:> > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
