2 ms·
> but calling in-app pooling "worse" than no pooling You don't need to get all worked up. Nowhere I affirm it's worse than no polling. I'm talking about not r
by hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
> but calling in-app pooling "worse" than no pooling
You don't need to get all worked up. Nowhere I affirm it's worse than no polling.
I'm talking about not reinventing the wheel, specially since pooling inside the worker is inferior than just setting up pgpool.
- zzzeek 14y agothere's a lot of cases where just running an app and having it talk to the database in a halfway-efficient way is a lot more convenient than having to install and start a whole separate service. As well as, in-app pooling is the easiest way to limit the max simultaneous connection checkouts per application. If PGBouncer were to handle this, I'd assume you'd need to either send distinct usernames or some other instance-specific token over so that it could identify sources of connections.