Sean Chittenden wrote:
>>I have received a question via the Advocacy site and I am not
>>knowledgeable enough to answer. Can you help?
>>
>>The question is: can PostgreSQL handle between 10'000 and 40'000
>>simultaneous connections? The persone asking the question has to
>>choose between Oracle and PostgreSQL, and my guess is that they
>>would be relieved if they could go with PostgreSQL.
>>
>>Do you have any additional advice I could transmit to this person
>>about handling that many connections. I'm sure any help we can
>>provide will be an additional selling point.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, this begs the question: are there any "reverse DB" proxy
>servers around that people have used? Having a reverse libpq proxy
>server would _rock_. Some light weight multi-threaded proxy that
>relays active connections to the backend and holds idle connections
>more efficiently than PostgreSQL... well... it'd be a life saver in
>sooooo many situations. Granted it'd have its short comings
>(connections would persist to the backend along transactions, once
>committed, the front end would "detatch" from the backend that it was
>using), but this is achitecturally similar to what MS and ORA do to
>handle gazillions of connections to a database that in reality, can
>only handle a few hundred (maybe a thousand or two) active
>connections.
>
>
There are 1000's of references to postgresql and connection pooling.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pooling+postgresql
Maybe somthing there will work.