| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Евгений Ефимкин <efimkin(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Connection limit doesn't work for superuser |
| Date: | 2018-11-07 16:19:38 |
| Message-ID: | 14059.1541607578@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:45 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'd vote against. I think there are way more cases where this would
>> create a problem than where it would fix one.
> Like what?
alter user postgres connection limit 0;
... oops ...
I'm not buying the argument that there are realistic use-cases where
you need a connection limit on a superuser role, either. Whatever
you're doing that might merit a connection limit should not be done
as superuser. I think this proposal boils down to asking for support
for an incredibly bad application design, and equipping every database
with an additional foot-gun in order to have that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-11-07 16:19:53 | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-11-07 16:14:47 | Re: First-draft release notes for back-branch releases |