Re: sorry, too many standbys already vs. MaxWalSenders vs. max_wal_senders

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sorry, too many standbys already vs. MaxWalSenders vs. max_wal_senders
Date: 2010-03-31 14:44:47
Message-ID: 20978.1270046687@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> could not accept connection from the standby because max_wal_senders is 0

> Well, that might still leave someone confused if they had one standby
> and were trying to bring up a second one.

I'd suggest something like "number of requested standby connections
exceeds max_wal_senders (currently %d)"

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-03-31 14:45:39 Re: sorry, too many standbys already vs. MaxWalSenders vs. max_wal_senders
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-03-31 14:27:03 pgindent excluded files list