From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: idle connection timeout ... |
Date: | 2002-10-25 17:31:59 |
Message-ID: | 20021025142853.F44818-100000@hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Basically, total connections is to be set larger than you think you will
> > ever need, while you expect per-db to be hit, and if something keeps
> > trying to connect and failing, we may get very bad connection
> > performance for other backends.
>
> Hmm, I see your point. A per-db limit *could* be useful even if it's
> set high enough that you don't expect it to be hit ... but most likely
> people would try to use it in a way that it wouldn't be very efficient
> compared to a client-side solution.
As mentioned in my response to Bruce ... in an ISP situation, a DoS attack
against the database by a single client can be very easy to accomplish in
our current situation ... all I need to do is setup a perl script that
opens all the connections I can to the database I have access to until all
are used up, and nobody else has access to *their* databases ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-10-25 17:34:04 | Re: idle connection timeout ... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-25 17:31:24 | Re: idle connection timeout ... |