Re: Connection Pooling....an interesting question!! (was..Connection Pooling...(Repost)...please do help...)

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Adam Lang wrote:

> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:07:16 -0500
> From: Adam Lang <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>
> To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Connection Pooling....an interesting question!! (was..Connection
Pooling...(Repost)...pleasedo help...)
 
> 
> As (I believe) Joel mentioned, you should use a distributed architecture.
> Clients shouldn't directly access your db server.  I believe it is
> "acceptable" if you are only looking at a small app that 10 people are going
> to use, but 200 hundred clients is a lot.
> 
> You should have postgres on one tier, your clients on one, and devise a
> middle tier that acts as a relay between your clients and postgres.  That
> way the 200 connections are not handled by postgres.  Postgres will only
> need to handle the 10 or so you pool with the middle tier.

Brrr, we have 128 persistent connections without any problem.
Just use -N option. I dont' remember maximum number of backends compiled
on default, but you could always change this number.
But you're right whe you speaking about 3-tire model. We're experimenting
with Corba and preliminary results are promising

Regards,    Oleg

_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83