From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Евгений Ефимкин <efimkin(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Connection limit doesn't work for superuser |
Date: | 2018-11-07 16:19:38 |
Message-ID: | 14059.1541607578@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:45 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'd vote against. I think there are way more cases where this would
>> create a problem than where it would fix one.
> Like what?
alter user postgres connection limit 0;
... oops ...
I'm not buying the argument that there are realistic use-cases where
you need a connection limit on a superuser role, either. Whatever
you're doing that might merit a connection limit should not be done
as superuser. I think this proposal boils down to asking for support
for an incredibly bad application design, and equipping every database
with an additional foot-gun in order to have that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-11-07 16:19:53 | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |
Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-11-07 16:14:47 | Re: First-draft release notes for back-branch releases |