| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)parba(dot)cz>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: per user/database connections limit again |
| Date: | 2005-08-01 08:53:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200508011053.52202.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Am Montag, 25. Juli 2005 18:31 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The new syntax for this command is CREATE/ALTER DATABASE/USER:
> > | MAX CONNECTIONS Iconst
> >
> > This adds 'max' as a keyword, though at a fairly unreserved level, I
> > think. Should we use the syntax LIMIT CONNECTIONS so we don't have to
> > add MAX as a keyword at all?
>
> I didn't like that either. I was thinking of just CONNECTIONS.
> LIMIT CONNECTIONS sort of works grammatically, I guess.
Would this not work in the context of the general user-specific ALTER USER ...
SET something = something?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2005-08-01 10:51:17 | Win32 Thread Safety |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2005-08-01 08:46:26 | Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch |