(2010/11/18 2:17), Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ross J. Reedstrom<reeds...@rice.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:41:37PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
If we don't need a PoC module for each new hooks, I'm not strongly
motivated to push it into contrib tree.
How about your opinion?
I'd say let it go, unless someone else feels strongly about it.
I would use this module (rate limit new connection attempts) as soon as
I could. Putting a cap on potential CPU usage on a production DB by either
a blackhat or mistake by a developer caused by a mistake in
configuration (leaving the port accessible) is definitely useful, even
in the face of max_connections. My production apps already have
their connections and seldom need new ones. They all use CPU though.
If KaiGai updates the code per previous discussion, would you be
willing to take a crack at adding documentation?
P.S. Your email client seems to be setting the Reply-To address to a
ridiculous value.
OK, I'll revise my patch according to the previous discussion.
Please wait for about one week. I have a big event in this weekend.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
