> Interesting, but how would it reduce the number of connections pgpool needs > to deal with? Unless you can't get the pooling behaviour you want from > pgpool? Is it not pooling the connections in the way you want? > > In your previous message you stated you needed up to 600 concurrent > connections, so if you also want up to 600 concurrent connections coming from > pgbouncer you'd still need 600 pgpool backends no matter which way around you > chain them wouldn't you?
Per my post, most of those connections are idle most of the time. So if I use pgbouncer in "transaction" mode, I end up with only around 35 connections. We need pgpool because of the load balancing, which pgbouncer does NOT do. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general