"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's nest to
>> define, because there's no one-to-one correspondence between backend
>> processes and groups.
> 'k, I'm a bit confused here ... we alr
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - -- Group www can only have 12 concurrent connections with the cluster.
> > ALTER GROUP www SET max_connections = 12;
>
> I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's nest to
> define, becau
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about roles? Is anybody going to attack the mixed users+groups
> implementation in this development cycles?
Not me. I think Peter was making some noises about it though.
regards, tom lane
---(end
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:30:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - -- Group www can only have 12 concurrent connections with the cluster.
> > ALTER GROUP www SET max_connections = 12;
>
> I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's ne
Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - -- Group www can only have 12 concurrent connections with the cluster.
> ALTER GROUP www SET max_connections = 12;
I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's nest
to define, because there's no one-to-one correspondence between b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 2:59 pm, David Felstead wrote:
> David Felstead wrote:
> Bah, what a way to make an entrance - I re-read Andrew's post and
> realised he was talking about pg_hba.conf. My apologies. :(
>
> Regardless, is this something th
