Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users
От | Harold Giménez |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACZOJr_-WsAwWcH4CwUrb0ZND+2jjxdzN5OKD9Vtxky2ZceC-A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > * Harold Giménez (harold@heroku.com) wrote: >> This is a separate topic, but in such a case I'd want to know that >> I've reached max_connections, which may not be a problem if I just >> don't need any more connections, but I still need something connecting >> to make sure the service is available at all and can respond to simple >> SELECT 1 queries and a myriad of other things you'd want to keep track >> of. > > I've never heard of an environment where you can be absolutely confident > that you need exactly max_connections and zero more. I seriously doubt > one exists. > > The service is not available if only a superuser can connect, imv. People push the limit all the time. They may run at 80% of their max and occasionally (and temporarily) scale up to a known bounded level, but no more. -Harold
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: