Re: HaveNFreeProcs ?

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HaveNFreeProcs ?
Date: 2005-06-24 15:33:08
Message-ID: 20050624153308.GP89438@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:44:25AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > ... because it's written to not loop more than
> > superuser_reserved_connections times, and it's hard to imagine anyone
> > would set that to more than half a dozen or so.
>
> We could help keep people on the correct path if guc.c enforced a sane
> upper limit on superuser_reserved_connections. I'm thinking somewhere
> around 10.
>
> Any thoughts about that?

Maybe a warning in the docs and the sample/default config file would be
better. It seems silly to limit this just because it might cause a
performance problem (this is just a performance issue, right?)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Cave-Ayland 2005-06-24 15:42:19 Re: Fixing r-tree semantics
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-06-24 15:21:22 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Removing Kerberos 4