| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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 14:08:40 |
| Message-ID: | 200508011408.j71E8eW01775@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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?
No because it isn't a GUC variable, it is per-user/db value. We could
have used that syntax, but it might confuse people.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-01 14:13:18 | Re: per user/database connections limit again |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-08-01 14:05:15 | Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch |