Re: Admin nice-to-have's

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: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, Scott Shattuck <ss(at)technicalpursuit(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Admin nice-to-have's
Date: 2002-08-16 16:27:12
Message-ID: 8555.1029515232@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:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could consider establishing a "soft" connection limit that's somewhat
>> less than max_connections, and allowing non-superusers to log in only
>> if the soft limit hasn't been exceeded. This does not guarantee that
>> superusers can always get in: the extra slots might have been filled by
>> other superuser connections. But it'd give them better odds than the
>> rabble.

> Yea, added to TODO:
> * Reserve last process slot for super-user if max_connections reached

I don't like phrasing it that way: if we are going to do this at all
then the number of reserved slots should be a configurable parameter.
If I were a DBA I'd want it to be at least two: figure one for a cron
job (doing backups, periodic vacuums, etc) and one for emergency
interactive superuser access. It definitely seems like something that
installations would have differing views about.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-16 16:34:25 Re: Open 7.3 issues
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-16 16:25:37 Re: Open 7.3 items: heap tuple header