From: Rikard Pavelic <rikard.pavelic@zg.htnet.hr>
To: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] Stored Procedures
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:59:28 +0100
Message-ID: <43D1E9E0.3000905@zg.htnet.hr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060120213455.GT20182@pervasive.com>
References: <43D130EF.3010205@zg.htnet.hr>
<20060120191031.GO20182@pervasive.com>
<43D13C2F.1030203@zg.htnet.hr>
<20060120213455.GT20182@pervasive.com>
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> If you're dealing with something that's performance critical you're not
> going to be constantly re-connecting anyway, so I don't see what the
> issue is.
>
I really missed your point.
In multi user environment where each user uses it's connection for
identification
purposes, this seems like a reasonable optimization.
I know there is pgpool, but it's non windows, and it's not the best
solution
for every other problem.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: rikard.pavelic@zg.htnet.hr, jnasby@pervasive.com
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] Stored Procedures
In-Reply-To: <43D1E9E0.3000905@zg.htnet.hr>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox