Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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
