Re: Connection limit doesn't work for superuser

On 11/7/18 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think that having superusers be immune to datconnlimit is actually
>> the right thing; for one reason, because datconnlimit can be set by
>> database owners, who should not be able to lock superusers out of
>> their database.
> Yeah, that's a reasonable argument, although they'd also be locking
> themselves out of the database, and the superuser could undo it by
> connecting to some other database.
>
>> If people are okay with having rolconnlimit act
>> differently from datconnlimit in this respect, then I'll withdraw
>> my objection.
> Is there any particular reason why they should be consistent? It's
> not obvious to me, but sometimes I'm dumb.

IMO, super users should only be affected by
superuser_reserved_connections. Otherwise we are getting into fine grain
of potential foot guns.

JD

>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
*** A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is. ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****