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 admin get in to see what's happening? If there's a
limit you're not really superuser, are you?

Slony in particular does not need more than N connections but does
require being a super user.

Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a

That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised that it might well make sense to have a separate connection-limited superuser for Slony purposes (or any other special purpose) alongside an unlimited superuser. If we were restricted to having just one superuser I would be much more inclined to agree with you. Perhaps if this suggestion were to be adopted it could be argued that the superuser reserved connection slots should be kept only for superusers that are not connection-limited.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to