Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Basically, total connections is to be set larger than you think you will > > ever need, while you expect per-db to be hit, and if something keeps > > trying to connect and failing, we may get very bad connection > > performance for other backends. > > Hmm, I see your point. A per-db limit *could* be useful even if it's > set high enough that you don't expect it to be hit ... but most likely > people would try to use it in a way that it wouldn't be very efficient > compared to a client-side solution.
What about a shared database server, where you want to have resource limits for each database/user? Could be usefull in such a case, even if it is not very efficient, it would be the only way. As dba you need not have control over the client apps. Just a thought. Regards, Michael ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
