Re: idle connection timeout ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: idle connection timeout ...
Date: 2002-10-25 15:02:48
Message-ID: 23263.1035558168@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Well, there are two different things here. I agree that if an app
>> is going to use persistent connections, it should be the app's
>> responsibility to manage them. But a per-database, as opposed to
>> installation-wide, limit on number of connections seems like a
>> reasonable idea. Note that the limit would result in new connections
>> being rejected, not old ones being summarily cut.

> But then the app is going to keep trying to connect over and over unless
> it knows something about why it can't connect.

So? If it hits the installation-wide limit, you'll have the same
problem; and at that point the (presumably runaway) app would have
sucked up all the connections, denying service to other apps using other
databases. I think Marc's point here is to limit his exposure to
misbehavior of any one client app, in a database server that is serving
multiple clients using multiple databases.

It occurs to me that a per-user connection limit is going to be the next
thing he asks for ;-). We could implement that too, if we wanted.
(Not sure whether PGPROC stores the user id, but it easily could.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-25 15:19:14 Re: idle connection timeout ...
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-25 14:47:12 Re: idle connection timeout ...