On Aug 8, 2004, at 1:29 AM, Martin Foster wrote:
> I am currently making use of Apache::DBI which overrides the
> DBI::disconnect call and keeps a pool of active connections for use
> when need be. Since it offloads the pooling to the webserver, it
> seems more advantageous then pgpool which while being able to run on a
> external system is not adding another layer of complexity.
>
Apache::DBI is not the same sort of a pool as pgpool. DB connections
are not shared among all your apache children (A common misconception).
So if you have 300 apache kids you can have have 300 db connections.
With pgpool connections are shared among all of them so even though
you have 300 kids you only have say 32 db connections.
> Anyone had any experience with both Apache::DBI and pgpool? For my
> needs they seem to do essentially the same thing, simply that one is
> invisible to the code while the other requires adding the complexity
> of a proxy.
>
Both are invisible to the app. (With pgpool it thinks it is connecting
to a regular old PG server)
And I've been running pgpool in production for months. It just sits
there. Doesn't take much to set it up or configure it. Works like a
champ
--
Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/