Received: from mail.postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBU2EhL60147 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:14:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from pgsql-interfaces-owner@postgresql.org) Received: from snoopy.mohawksoft.com ([216.41.12.227]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBRFD3L22030; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:13:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from markw@mohawksoft.com) Received: from mohawksoft.com (IDENT:markw@snoopy.mohawksoft.com [216.41.12.227]) by snoopy.mohawksoft.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBRFFgF18806; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:15:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3A4A079E.C69D6666@mohawksoft.com> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:15:42 -0500 From: mlw X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-Mohawk i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew CC: "'Bruce Momjian'" , PostgreSQL-development , PostgreSQL-interfaces Subject: Re: PHP and PostgreSQL References: <183FA749499ED311B6550000F87E206C0C94D1@srv.ctlno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200012/255 X-Sequence-Number: 602 Matthew 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? > I have not seen this, though now that you mention it, I will be on the lookout. We have a load balenced system with [n] apache servers, each with a local Postgres database that receives updates from a master. On the local web servers, we have done a good deal of load testing. Our apache instances are pretty persistent, i.e. we do not have a time out or maximum number of transactions. I never see more more postgres instances than I have apache instances. We are using pg_pConnect to connect to the postgres system. The behavior may differ if the database is on a different system. -- http://www.mohawksoft.com