Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Basically, total connections is to be set larger than you think you will > > ever need, while you expect per-db to be hit, and if something keeps > > trying to connect and failing, we may get very bad connection > > performance for other backends. > > Hmm, I see your point. A per-db limit *could* be useful even if it's > set high enough that you don't expect it to be hit ... but most likely > people would try to use it in a way that it wouldn't be very efficient > compared to a client-side solution.
The only way to do it would be, after a few hits of the limit, to start delaying the connection rejections so you don't get hammered. It could be done, but even then, I am not sure if it would be optimal. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
