On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, there are two different things here. I agree that if an app
> >> is going to use persistent connections, it should be the app's
> >> responsibility to manage them. But a per-database, as opposed to
> >> installation-wide, limit on number of connections seems like a
> >> reasonable idea. Note that the limit would result in new connections
> >> being rejected, not old ones being summarily cut.
> > But then the app is going to keep trying to connect over and over unless
> > it knows something about why it can't connect.
> So? If it hits the installation-wide limit, you'll have the same
> problem; and at that point the (presumably runaway) app would have
> sucked up all the connections, denying service to other apps using other
> databases. I think Marc's point here is to limit his exposure to
> misbehavior of any one client app, in a database server that is serving
> multiple clients using multiple databases.
> It occurs to me that a per-user connection limit is going to be the next
> thing he asks for ;-)
Actually, sounds like a good idea, but have been trying to leave (and
move) multiple client auth to be within the database/application itself
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly