| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Harold Giménez <harold(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users |
| Date: | 2014-01-22 00:46:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20140122004622.GS31026@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Harold Giménez (harold(at)heroku(dot)com) wrote:
> This is a separate topic, but in such a case I'd want to know that
> I've reached max_connections, which may not be a problem if I just
> don't need any more connections, but I still need something connecting
> to make sure the service is available at all and can respond to simple
> SELECT 1 queries and a myriad of other things you'd want to keep track
> of.
I've never heard of an environment where you can be absolutely confident
that you need exactly max_connections and zero more. I seriously doubt
one exists.
The service is not available if only a superuser can connect, imv.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Harold Giménez | 2014-01-22 00:52:56 | Re: proposal: hide application_name from other users |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-22 00:46:01 | Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks) |