--- On Thu, 12/8/10, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Does anyone here combine pgpool and
pgbouncer?
If so, what order do you chain them in ... pgpool, then
multiple
pgbouncer pools, or pgbouncer in front of pgpool? And
why?
I'm thinking that pgbouncer in front of pgpool makes
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
Interesting. So once clients connects to pgbouncer, it keeps the
connection to clients. When a client starts a transaction, it connects
to PostgreSQL(or pgpool in your case). When a client finishes the
transaction, pgbouncer disconnects to PostgreSQL.
Actually, it doesn't disconnect. It
Actually, it doesn't disconnect. It issues RESET ALL;DISCARD ALL; and
keeps the connection open, waiting for the next client transaction. It
only disconnects after a connection has been idle for a preset interval
(generally 5 minutes).
Ok. So if all clients are busy and keep on sending
Does anyone here combine pgpool and pgbouncer?
If so, what order do you chain them in ... pgpool, then multiple
pgbouncer pools, or pgbouncer in front of pgpool? And why?
I'm thinking that pgbouncer in front of pgpool makes sense just because
it would reduce the number of connections which
