[HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL

2001-01-03 Thread Frank Joerdens
Tom Lane wrote: [ . . . ] > A general-purpose connection-reuse facility on the server end cannot > eliminate these overheads, whereas it's trivial to avoid them within > the context of a multi-threaded client. PHP 4.04 does provide support for AOLServer now (which is multithreaded). I haven't had

[HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL

2001-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
Tom Samplonius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... Besides, as already has been tested, session startup time is > minimal. Well, mumble ... I think the startup time is negligible if you are issuing a reasonable number of queries per session (say a few dozen). But if you connect, issue one query,

[HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL

2001-01-02 Thread Tom Samplonius
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, mlw wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Does this requested chagne have to do with Apache or PostgreSQL? > > > I suspect it is a request that live postgresql processes can linger > around after a connection is completed and be re-assigned to a new > connection as soon as

[HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL

2001-01-02 Thread mlw
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Does this requested chagne have to do with Apache or PostgreSQL? > I suspect it is a request that live postgresql processes can linger around after a connection is completed and be re-assigned to a new connection as soon as one comes along. This will save the startup cos