Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:14 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I confused?
>
> I believe < is correct. At this point, the new backend will have already
> claimed a proc struct, so if the number of remaining free slots equals the
> number of reserved slots, it is okay.

OK. Might be worth a short comment.

> > What's the deal with removing "and no new replication connections will
> > be accepted" from the documentation? Is the existing documentation
> > just wrong? If so, should we fix that first? And maybe delete
> > "non-replication" from the error message that says "remaining
> > connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser
> > connections"? It seems like right now the comments say that
> > replication connections are a completely separate pool of connections,
> > but the documentation and the error message make it sound otherwise.
> > If that's true, then one of them is wrong, and I think it's the
> > docs/error message. Or am I just misreading it?
>
> I think you are right. This seems to have been missed in ea92368. I moved
> this part to a new patch that should probably be back-patched to v12.

I'm inclined to commit it to master and not back-patch. It doesn't
seem important enough to perturb translations.

Tushar seems to have a point about pg_use_reserved_connections vs.
pg_use_reserved_backends. I think we should standardize on the former,
as backends is an internal term.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com