[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:42:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also note that we could easily fix things so that the max-number-of-
>> backends limit is not checked until we have passed the authentication
>> procedure. A PM child that's still busy authenti
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:42:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also note that we could easily fix things so that the max-number-of-
> backends limit is not checked until we have passed the authentication
> procedure. A PM child that's still busy authenticating doesn't have
> to count.
And impose a
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Also note that we could easily fix things so that the max-number-of-
>> backends limit is not checked until we have passed the authentication
>> procedure. A PM child that's still busy authenticating doesn't have
>> to count.
> H
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we did this the straightforward way (exchange authentication packets
> after fork()) then rogue clients could connect, start a backend, twiddle
> thumbs, never finish the authentication exchange, meanwhile having filled
> up the limit on the number
