| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 16:27:12 |
| Message-ID: | 8555.1029515232@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-16 16:34:25 | Re: Open 7.3 issues |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-16 16:25:37 | Re: Open 7.3 items: heap tuple header |