It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
Slony in particular does not need more than N connections but does
require being a super user.
--
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the connection
slots, how does the admin get in to see what's happening? If
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
If you're superuser, you are not subject to access restrictions,
by definition. I cannot imagine any scenario under which the
above would be a good
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the connection
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the connection
slots, how does the
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
If you're superuser, you are not subject to access restrictions,
by definition. I cannot
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:07 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
So if
Nevermind, I realized now that you're talking about a different setting.
I thought there is a limit for super-users too... citation from:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/runtime-config-connection.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-CONNECTION-SETTINGS
Cheers,
Csaba.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
enforcement. I think this should be changed.
So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a
superuser?
That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised
that it might well make sense to have a separate connection-limited
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a
superuser?
That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised
that it might well
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a
superuser?
That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised
that it might well make sense to have a
As a protection against malice, yes. I think Rod was more interested in
some protection against stupidity.
Maybe the real answer is that Slony should connect as a non-superuser
and call security definer functions for the privileged things it needs
to do.
Wouldn't that break Slony's
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
As a protection against malice, yes. I think Rod was more interested
in some protection against stupidity.
Maybe the real answer is that Slony should connect as a non-superuser
and call security definer functions for the privileged things it
needs to do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
As a protection against malice, yes. I think Rod was more
interested in some protection against stupidity.
Maybe the real answer is that Slony should connect as a
non-superuser and call security definer functions for the
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-07-31 kell 09:52, kirjutas Tom Lane:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a
superuser?
That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised
that it
16 matches
Mail list logo
