Can anyone tell me that if the max_connections is above 100, the server will use pooling instead?
For all participants in this particular dsicuss, what is the reasonable value for max_connections without causing any harm to the Postgres 9.0 server. I am a nonvice Postgres user so any advice is always welcomed. Thanks, On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au>wrote: > There might be a very cheap and simple way to help reduce the number of > people running into problems because they set massive max_connections values > that their server cannot cope with instead of using pooling. > > In the default postgresql.conf, change: > > max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart) > # Note: Increasing max_connections costs ~400 bytes of shared memory > # per connection slot, plus lock space (see max_locks_per_transaction). > > to: > > max_connections = 100 # (change requires restart) > # WARNING: If you're about to increase max_connections above 100, you > # should probably be using a connection pool instead. See: > # http://wiki.postgresql.org/max_connections > # > # Note: Increasing max_connections costs ~400 bytes of shared memory > # per connection slot, plus lock space (see max_locks_per_transaction). > # > > > ... where wiki.postgresql.org/max_connections (which doesn't yet exist) > explains the throughput costs of too many backends and the advantages of > configuring a connection pool instead. > > Sure, this somewhat contravenes the "users don't read - ever" principle, > but we can hope that _some_ people will read a comment immediately beside > the directive they're modifying. > > -- > Craig Ringer > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Edison
