Re: Admin nice-to-have's

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, Scott Shattuck <ss(at)technicalpursuit(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Admin nice-to-have's
Date: 2002-08-16 17:04:35
Message-ID: 200208161704.g7GH4ZR22766@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We could consider establishing a "soft" connection limit that's somewhat
> >> less than max_connections, and allowing non-superusers to log in only
> >> if the soft limit hasn't been exceeded. This does not guarantee that
> >> superusers can always get in: the extra slots might have been filled by
> >> other superuser connections. But it'd give them better odds than the
> >> rabble.
>
> > Yea, added to TODO:
> > * Reserve last process slot for super-user if max_connections reached
>
> I don't like phrasing it that way: if we are going to do this at all
> then the number of reserved slots should be a configurable parameter.
> If I were a DBA I'd want it to be at least two: figure one for a cron
> job (doing backups, periodic vacuums, etc) and one for emergency
> interactive superuser access. It definitely seems like something that
> installations would have differing views about.

Added "few":

* Reserve last few process slots for super-user if
max_connections reached

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-16 17:05:37 Re: Bug/Change in behavior for 7.3 vs 7.2.1
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-16 17:01:50 Re: Open 7.3 issues