On 11/7/18 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:14 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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. *****
