On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Jan Urbański (wulc...@wulczer.org) wrote: >> On 04/11/10 14:09, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Hmm, I wonder how useful this is given that restriction. >> >> As KaiGai mentined, it's more to make bruteforcing difficult (read: tmie >> consuming), right? > > Which it would still do, since the attacker would be bumping up against > max_connections. max_connections would be a DOS point, but that's no > different from today.
I haven' t thought of a way to test this, so I guess I'll just ask. If the attacking client just waits a few milliseconds for a response and then drops the socket, opening a new one, will the server-side walking-dead process continue to be charged against max_connections until it's sleep expires? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
