From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PGconn and fork
In-reply-to: 
 <CANs8QJajRnuU-Yz26ZQnO7ymAj+wgDvNOZ4L7sWm6y6n7ZeypQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANs8QJajRnuU-Yz26ZQnO7ymAj+wgDvNOZ4L7sWm6y6n7ZeypQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 08 May 2013 10:29:48 -0300"
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 10:03:26 -0400
Message-ID: <21910.1368021806@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-interfaces-owner@postgresql.org

Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj@gmail.com> writes:
> I have a program in C, the createas a connection, do stuff, fork, exit
> child and continues life.
> Supose that when I create de PGconn, I have 1 active connection in postgres.
> When I fork, does it count as a second connection? I mean, will postrges
> interpretate 2 active connections or they only share the same connection?
> I know that if the child process execute some query, I can get unexpected
> results, but it doesn't, so I am safe about that.
> I'm only worried that this can increase the number of connections and reach
> the limit of max_connections.

No, the child process will just have another reference to the open
socket that connects to the server.  The reason why it's dangerous
to send queries from such a process is exactly that, to the server,
it looks like the same connection as the parent process.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-interfaces mailing list (pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-interfaces