Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > I think this is fairly irrelevant, because a not-yet-backend should
> > have a fairly short timeout (a few seconds) before just shutting
> > down anyway, so that malfunctioning clients can't cause denial of
> > service; the particular case you menti
Tom Lane writes:
> I think this is fairly irrelevant, because a not-yet-backend should
> have a fairly short timeout (a few seconds) before just shutting
> down anyway, so that malfunctioning clients can't cause denial of
> service; the particular case you mention is just one scenario.
I have a
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now one little problem remains. If a bogus client causes a
> child to hang before becoming a real backend, this child is
> in the backend list of the postmaster, but has all signals
> blocked. Thus, preventing the postmaster from bee
