Re: Admin nice-to-have's
От
Bruce Momjian
Тема
Re: Admin nice-to-have's
Дата
Msg-id
200208161704.g7GH4ZR22766@candle.pha.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: Admin nice-to-have's (Tom Lane)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Admin nice-to-have's Scott Shattuck <ss@technicalpursuit.com>
Re: Admin nice-to-have's Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Admin nice-to-have's Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org>
Re: Admin nice-to-have's Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Admin nice-to-have's Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Admin nice-to-have's Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Admin nice-to-have's Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Admin nice-to-have's Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> We could consider establishing a "soft" connection limit that's somewhat > >> less than max_connections, and allowing non-superusers to log in only > >> if the soft limit hasn't been exceeded. This does not guarantee that > >> superusers can always get in: the extra slots might have been filled by > >> other superuser connections. But it'd give them better odds than the > >> rabble. > > > Yea, added to TODO: > > * Reserve last process slot for super-user if max_connections reached > > I don't like phrasing it that way: if we are going to do this at all > then the number of reserved slots should be a configurable parameter. > If I were a DBA I'd want it to be at least two: figure one for a cron > job (doing backups, periodic vacuums, etc) and one for emergency > interactive superuser access. It definitely seems like something that > installations would have differing views about. Added "few": * Reserve last few process slots for super-user if max_connections reached -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления