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
