First, this isn't a bug... this is more of a discussion for -general or -admin.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov > wrote: > "Suprabhat" <suprabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > FATAL: too many connections already and there are too many > > postgres processes on the server. We have used connection > > pooling methods after unsuccessfully using pgpool2. > > Is there a thread somewhere where you were trying to get help > configuring pgpool? > Agreed, pgpool is quite sensitive to being configured properly. If you're using the pooler and you are still getting that error, it is definitely a configuration issue. > > > Probably we are doing some basics wrong. > > > > Total number of connections we are trying to make is something > > around 300 concurrently. > > Well, the main point of a connection pool is to allow multiple > client-side processes or threads to see a large number of logical > connections to the database while those funnel down to a small > number on the database side. 300 active users might do quite well > on a connection pool which maintains 10 or 20 connections to the > database. It sounds like you haven't used the correct settings to > achieve that. > > In all honesty, if you're just looking for a connection pool, I personally prefer pgbouncer. That being said, pgpool provides a lot of other features (load-balancing, replication,etc...). -Kevin > > -- > Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs >
