| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jonathan Gardner <jgardner(at)jonathangardner(dot)net>, David Felstead <David(dot)Felstead(at)colesmyer(dot)com(dot)au>, 'Postgresql Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 'Andrew Dunstan' <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list) |
| Date: | 2003-12-18 01:49:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20031218014939.GD27884@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:30:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner <jgardner(at)jonathangardner(dot)net> 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 backend
> processes and groups. Per-user and per-database make sense to me,
> because a backend does have a well-defined (session) user and a
> well-defined database.
What about roles? Is anybody going to attack the mixed users+groups
implementation in this development cycles?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car.
(Carrie Snow)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-18 02:30:17 | Re: Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-12-18 01:35:20 | Re: TODO list |