From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200101020716.CAA09459@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL
In-Reply-To: <3A4A1C90.B8E939E5@debisschop.net> "from Karl DeBisschop at Dec
	27, 2000 11:45:04 am"
To: Karl DeBisschop <karl@debisschop.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:16:53 -0500 (EST)
CC: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Does this requested chagne have to do with Apache or PostgreSQL?

w wrote:
> > 
> >         I have been asked by the major PHP developer Rasmus Lerdorf to see
> > if
> >         the PostgreSQL/PHP interface needs any improvements.
> > 
> >         Is the current PostgreSQL interface module in PHP adequate?  Does it
> >         support all the current libpq features?
> > 
> > The only problem we have run into (and I have heard of others having this
> > problem also) is with persistent connections.  I have seen discussion on
> > persistent connection problems but I'm not sure the problem was ever
> > resolved.  The problem we have seen is that when using persistent
> > connections the web server doesn't seen to reuse the connections or somthing
> > to that effect.  The result being that we eventually use up our postgres
> > limit of 48 connections and nothing can connect to postgre anymore.  It is
> > possible that this is a configuration problem that we haven't sufficiently
> > investigated, but I meniton it because I have heard other talk of this.
> > Anyone have more information?
> 
> Persistent connections behave exactly as advertised. Each apache process
> sets up and maintains persistent connections as needed. The problem is
> that for a typical web server, there are so many subprocesses that
> persistent connections are probably consume more resources than they
> save, unless they are combined with connection pooling across ALL the
> apache processes.
> 
> Implementation of connection pooling is by far the most serious
> shortcoming of the current implementation, IMHO. 
> 
> I would dearly love to see this addressed as our postgresql database
> sees connections from about 300 servers for 6 databases. Since our
> postgresql server cannot support 1800 simultaneous active backends,
> persistent connections are useless without pooling. So instead we
> initiate 10 or more backends every second for generally very simple
> queries. Most of the queries are pretty simple, so I would not be at all
> surprised if we sent more system resources opening connections than we
> do actually answering queries
> 
> -- 
> Karl DeBisschop                      kdebisschop@alert.infoplease.com
> Learning Network/Information Please  http://www.infoplease.com
> Netsaint Plugin Developer            kdebisschop@users.sourceforge.net
> 


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026