Re: PostgreSQL Question

["Richard Zimmerman" <Richard@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Very cool.  Still potentially bad for machines that need to accept
>alot of connections.  I was thinking more of a "connection rate" limit
>like sendmail and xinetd have,  it's been talked about but isn't in yet.
>But I suppose a RDBMS exposed to the Internet is generall a bad
>idea anyway.

   Agreed! Thus my need to "Hide" it.... Convienced the boss about the first
Linux box, still working to get the second one so I can move PostgreSQL and
other stuff off the "Internet" server. I'll probably just grab one of the
old puters lying around here and just "do it" <G>

> Depends on how it's coded.  If the select procedure in the
>postmaster process checks to see if the limit has been exceeded
>before spawning a child to handle the connection then yes this
>basically fixes it.  If it spawns a child and then the child checks to
>see if the count is exceeded it doesn't do anything to solve the problem
>of DOS.  I'd wager it is coded the first way because the PostgreSQL
>guys are very smart,  but I don't know that for a fact (and at the moment
>don't have the source lying about to check)

   While I'm at it I'll ask about that too! <G>

> I've never seen a postgresql.conf file.

   I don't feel so bad now! <BG>

   Goose