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
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 ... |