| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neal Norwitz <neal(at)metaslash(dot)com>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: refusing connections based on load ... |
| Date: | 2001-04-24 19:11:46 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0104242109390.736-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Doug McNaught writes:
> A very valid objection. I'm also dubious as to the utility of the
> whole concept. What happens when Sendmail refuses a message based on
> load? It is requeued on the sending end to be tried later. What
> happens when PG refuses a new client connection based on load? The
> application stops working. Is this really better than having slow
> response time because the server is thrashing?
The concept is just as dubious as the concept of rejecting clients based
on how many clients are already connected. There are some technical
reasons for the latter, but it is still used as an administrative tool.
The rule is, if you don't like it, don't use it.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2001-04-24 20:40:37 | Re: RI oddness |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2001-04-24 18:28:13 | Re: refusing connections based on load ... |