> 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
[email protected]
http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
