So - would it then be worth doing pgpool?
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:12:04 +0900 (JST), Tatsuo Ishii
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Cunningham wrote:
> > > concerned that if I drop the number of connections to less than the
> > > number of databases I have, that
I was considering putting pgpool in to place and was hoping to hear
some feedback from those who use it. I am mostly concerned about the
configuration I have.
In my setup, any one database server contains between 100 and 300
databases on it, each of which may be accessed at any time by one of
sev
Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Cunningham wrote:
> > concerned that if I drop the number of connections to less than the
> > number of databases I have, that pgpool would open the limit of
> > connections, hold them open and not allow any connections to
the best discussions I've been on - glad everyone
can be so helpful.
Thanks!
-John
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:08:10 -0600, Scott Marlowe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 11:30, John Cunningham wrote:
> > OK Guys - here's the config file as I've writ
OK Guys - here's the config file as I've writtten it.
I'll paste in the whole thing before, but this is the important stuff:
max_connections = 256
shared_buffers = 32768 # (256 MB)
sort_mem = 1024 # min 64, size in KB
fsync = No
wal_sync_method = fsync # the default varies across platforms:
eff
: SHA1
>
>
> On Dec 22, 2004, at 10:15 AM, John Cunningham wrote:
>
> > like to configure it to get the most out of the server possible as far
> > as shared memory, sort memore, etc. I haven't found a lot of
> > documentation on
Hey Guys,
I am setting up a new dedicated Postgres server, and will serve about
60 databases to a web site serving 250,000 people at the rate of about
20,000 a day. That may all be irrellevent though for the purposes of
this conversation.
The main thing about the application is that we're talkin
