| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Евгений Ефимкин <efimkin(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Connection limit doesn't work for superuser |
| Date: | 2018-11-07 18:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYzPE=jh+xPWWPCtOKjxwfGJhadxnDohsq5NYzV1MPXYg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2018-11-07 19:02:12 | Re: Connection limit doesn't work for superuser |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-11-07 18:41:25 | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |