Re: idle connection timeout ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: idle connection timeout ...
Date: 2002-10-25 20:43:41
Message-ID: 12220.1035578621@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 16:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I prefer GUC variables to table entries for setting stuff like recursion
>> limits; they're much lighter-weight to create and access, and you don't
>> need an initdb to add or remove a parameter.

> I don't see an adequate way to store the individual settings as GUC
> variables per user...

Have you looked at the per-database and per-user GUC facilities in 7.3?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-10-25 21:06:39 Re: Time for RC1 soon?
Previous Message Robert Treat 2002-10-25 20:32:58 Re: idle connection timeout ...