On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Well, there are two different things here. I agree that if an app > >> is going to use persistent connections, it should be the app's > >> responsibility to manage them. But a per-database, as opposed to > >> installation-wide, limit on number of connections seems like a > >> reasonable idea. Note that the limit would result in new connections > >> being rejected, not old ones being summarily cut. > > > But then the app is going to keep trying to connect over and over unless > > it knows something about why it can't connect. > > So? If it hits the installation-wide limit, you'll have the same > problem; and at that point the (presumably runaway) app would have > sucked up all the connections, denying service to other apps using other > databases. I think Marc's point here is to limit his exposure to > misbehavior of any one client app, in a database server that is serving > multiple clients using multiple databases. > > It occurs to me that a per-user connection limit is going to be the next > thing he asks for ;-)
Actually, sounds like a good idea, but have been trying to leave (and move) multiple client auth to be within the database/application itself ... ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
