On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 11:08:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Nathan Myers writes: > > > When the system is too heavily loaded (however measured), any further > > login attempts will fail. What I suggested is, instead of the > > postmaster accept()ing the connection, why not leave the connection > > attempt in the queue until we can afford a back end to handle it? > > Because the new connection might be a cancel request. Supporting cancel requests seems like a poor reason to ignore what load-shedding support operating systems provide. To support cancel requests, it would suffice for PG to listen at another socket dedicated to administrative requests. (It might even ignore MaxBackends for connections on that socket.) Nathan Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source ... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Nathan Myers
- [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Peter Eisentraut
- [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) mlw
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) mlw
- [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: SOMAXCONN (was Re: Solaris source code) Nathan Myers