From: | Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Connection slots reserved for replication |
Date: | 2018-09-17 12:25:56 |
Message-ID: | CAFh8B=nbh4gbFCiT-jpjth60QJC1pKoWkvgke+7di-FgAduGLQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
2018-09-14 12:23 GMT+02:00 Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> 2. If we know that this is neither superuser nor replication connection, we
>> should check that there are at least (superuser_reserved_connections +
>> NumWalSenders() - max_wal_senders) connection slots are available.
>
> You wanted to mean (superuser_reserved_connections + max_wal_senders -
> NumWalSenders()) in the second point?
Sure, my bad. Did a mistake when writing an email, but in the attached
file it looks good.
>
> One argrable point of the second option could be that it breaks
> backward compatibility of the parameter configurations. That is, the
> existing systems need to re-configure the max_connections. So it might
> be better to take the first option with
> replication_reservd_connections = 0 by default.
Please find attached the new version of the patch, which introduces
replication_reservd_connections GUC
Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
replication_reserved_connections-v2.patch | text/x-patch | 8.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-09-17 12:31:30 | Re: XMLNAMESPACES (was Re: Clarification of nodeToString() use cases) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-17 11:49:30 | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru |