Re: TODO list
| От | Tom Lane | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: TODO list | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 13986.1071701139@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: TODO list (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) | 
| Ответы | Re: TODO list | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> case 6 - limit all users' connections regardless of database:
> limit all all n
That's called max_connections.  Don't think we need a redundant
implementation of same ...
Another little nitpick is that I don't like assuming that "any" and
"all" are never going to be used as database or user names.  (I know
that pg_hba.conf already uses "all" this way, and IMHO that was a bogus
decision.  Something like "*" would have been less likely to collide.)
On an implementation level, where are you thinking of enforcing this?
pg_hba.conf would not be very appropriate for the most likely place to
put it, which is in backend startup shortly after establishing a PGPROC
entry (with the data about numbers of active connections obtained by
scanning the PGPROC array for other backends connected to the same
database or with the same userid).  I think we've thrown away the
PostmasterContext long before that, so we couldn't use cached
pg_hba.conf data without some redesign of the startup sequence.
        regards, tom lane
		
	В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: