Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
>> It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit
>> enforcement. I think this should be changed.
>>
>
> So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the connection
> slots, how does the admin get in to see what's happening? If there's a
> limit you're not really superuser, are you?
>
>
>> Slony in particular does not need more than N connections but does
>> require being a super user.
>>
>
> Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a
> superuser?
>
>
>
That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised
that it might well make sense to have a separate connection-limited
superuser for Slony purposes (or any other special purpose) alongside an
unlimited superuser. If we were restricted to having just one superuser
I would be much more inclined to agree with you. Perhaps if this
suggestion were to be adopted it could be argued that the superuser
reserved connection slots should be kept only for superusers that are
not connection-limited.
cheers
andrew
