Josh Berkus wrote:
> Heikki,
>
>> You might also consider if using pgbouncer or similar really is
>> necessary. Perhaps you could get away with a per-client connection pool,
>> with "min pool size" small enough, maybe 0, that the number of
>> simultaneous connections to the server would stay reasonable.
>>
>
> It becomes necessary whenever you have a large number of appservers
> connecting to the same database server. Setting min pool size
> downwards isn't really effective becuase then you're just adding
> connection time delays ... exactly what you're trying to prevent by
> using a connection pool.
>
> I'm working on a scalable project myself which is why I'm concerned
> about this. The reason why we're planning to rely on pgBouncer is
> that we'll have both java and non-java applications connecting to the
> same database, and we don't want to manage two different
> connection/failover pools. So it's important to us that PG-JDBC
> function with independant connection pools.
>
> So where is it going to be easier to fix this ... pgBouncer, or pg-JDBC?
pgBouncer is broken so I'd fix it.
>
> --Josh Berkus
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>