X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4706E8BA037 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:37:25 +0000 (GMT) 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 20217-09 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:37:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from stark.xeocode.com (gsstark.mtl.istop.com [66.11.160.162]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F75F8BA034 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:37:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.xeocode.com) by stark.xeocode.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cyiew-0008Gv-00; Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:36:58 -0500 To: Chad Robinson Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Problem with asynchronous connect in 8.0.1 References: <20050208193032.29435.qmail@web11610.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050208193032.29435.qmail@web11610.mail.yahoo.com> From: Greg Stark Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992 Date: 08 Feb 2005 22:36:58 -0500 Message-ID: <87pszae751.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> Lines: 21 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.057 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200502/22 X-Sequence-Number: 5267 Chad Robinson writes: > It seems so. I have to have this many connections, because for security and > privacy reasons the processes involved are isolated. There are about > 1000-1200 per box, 4-8 boxes, depending on how I load-balance things. Unless > you know some way to REDUCE memory usage per Postgres client connection, > we'll see how things go with pgpool. It sounds to me like you might even want something more constricted than pgpool. Perhaps you want to write some sort of daemon that keeps a single connection to the database and performs these short simple queries in response to simple requests it receives from the clients. This could actually improve security since it would limit what types of queries can be performed and what data can be retrieved. You could use something like ldap or snmp or even just a simple xdr rpc call instead of writing database queries into your application. -- greg