Re: refusing connections based on load ...

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: refusing connections based on load ...
Date: 2001-04-24 04:39:29
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20010424123929.00d85100@192.228.128.13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 03:09 PM 23-04-2001 -0300, you wrote:
>
>Anyone thought of implementing this, similar to how sendmail does it? If
>load > n, refuse connections?
>
>Basically, if great to set max clients to 256, but if load hits 50 as a
>result, the database is near to useless ... if you set it to 256, and 254
>idle connections are going, load won't rise much, so is safe, but if half
>of those processes are active, it hurts ...

Sorry, but I still don't understand the reasons why one would want to do
this. Could someone explain?

I'm thinking that if I allow 256 clients, and my hardware/OS bogs down when
60 users are doing lots of queries, I either accept that, or figure that my
hardware/OS actually can't cope with that many clients and reduce the max
clients or upgrade the hardware (or maybe do a little tweaking here and
there).

Why not be more deterministic about refusing connections and stick to
reducing max clients? If not it seems like a case where you're promised
something but when you need it, you can't have it.

Cheerio,
Link.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Doug McNaught 2001-04-24 04:53:55 Re: refusing connections based on load ...
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2001-04-24 04:23:41 Re: refusing connections based on load ...