# halleypo@yahoo.com.br / 2005-07-26 14:17:17 -0300:
> What surprises me is not that the previous connection is closed and a
> new connection is opened.
> What surprises me is the fact that the previous process is killed and
> a new process is forked just to connect to another database with the
> same user. I was expecting that the new connection could use the same
> process. If you are monitoring user activity you must know that when
> the user connects to another database another process is created, or
> even worst, if the user connects to the same database again another
> process is created.
> It was not clear to me this relationship between connection and
> process. Now it is.
Well, there's nothing that would make this model required, but it
surely helps keep things like entropy at reasonable levels.
IOW, this behavior allows for greater stability through simpler code
and limited process lifetime.
But maybe I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make.
To make things a bit clearer: what is it that you find so disturbing
or surprising in the current PostgreSQL behavior? Why did you expect
it reusing the same process, and what benefits do you expect (or
preferably, have experimentally gained) from the alternative?
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
