X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FFD5355E for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 18:21:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01167-09 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 21:21:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66BF54205 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 18:21:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DT4iv-0000JB-Jk for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2005 23:14:33 +0200 Received: from 1-1-2-48a.rny.sth.bostream.se ([82.182.133.12]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 May 2005 23:14:33 +0200 Received: from thhal by 1-1-2-48a.rny.sth.bostream.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 May 2005 23:14:33 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org From: Thomas Hallgren Subject: Re: Deep integration of PostgreSQL with Apache Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Lines: 14 Message-ID: <4277EAEF.5030707@mailblocks.com> References: <20050503151626.37630.qmail@web52405.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1-1-2-48a.rny.sth.bostream.se User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20050503151626.37630.qmail@web52405.mail.yahoo.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.157 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/143 X-Sequence-Number: 77491 Robin Boerdijk wrote: > Why would > this web/database server be limited to using only one connection? > No it wouldn't. I misunderstood your question. It's one process/one connection. If you don't use Apache as a multi-threaded server, then your question makes more sense. Still, it's a lot of work to make it happen and I'm not sure you'd gain anything. My advice would be to consider a multi-threaded server that uses a connection pool and perhaps include some shared caching of data that is more static in nature in the middle tier. That could really save some context switches. Regards, Thomas Hallgren