Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> We could consider establishing a "soft" connection limit that's somewhat > >> less than max_connections, and allowing non-superusers to log in only > >> if the soft limit hasn't been exceeded. This does not guarantee that > >> superusers can always get in: the extra slots might have been filled by > >> other superuser connections. But it'd give them better odds than the > >> rabble. > > > Yea, added to TODO: > > * Reserve last process slot for super-user if max_connections reached > > I don't like phrasing it that way: if we are going to do this at all > then the number of reserved slots should be a configurable parameter. > If I were a DBA I'd want it to be at least two: figure one for a cron > job (doing backups, periodic vacuums, etc) and one for emergency > interactive superuser access. It definitely seems like something that > installations would have differing views about.
Added "few": * Reserve last few process slots for super-user if max_connections reached -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org