On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > If people are okay with having rolconnlimit act > differently from datconnlimit in this respect, then I'll withdraw > my objection.
Since the rolconnlimit specifically and precisely targets the superuser in a narrow manner it makes sense on its face to recognize it. That the indirect targeting of all superusers via datconnlimit is ignored is likewise a reasonable decision. Ignoring datconnlimit doesn't reduce the validity of having the rolconnlimit setting be enforced and I do not see a substantial argument for why doing so could be harmful to a reasonably skilled operator; while it provides a reasonable, if likely seldom used, capability that is already long established for non-superusers. For me the burden falls onto why rolconnlimit should not be enforced...regardless of the fact that unenforced is status quo. We generally tend toward giving superusers abilities and letting them decide how to use them and this should be no different. David J.
