From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements |
Date: | 2010-04-20 14:01:48 |
Message-ID: | h2g603c8f071004200701jff98aca6sfd063608572e463@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, I agree with you, but the difference is only how to achieve.
> ISTM that there are three choices:
>
> 1. Heikki's proposal
>> ReservedBackends = superuser_reserved_connections + max_wal_senders
>> MaxBackends = max_connections + autovacuum_max_workers + max_wal_senders + 1
This seemed sensible to me when Heikki first described it, but now it
seems overly complex.
> 2. My proposal
> Remove superuser privilege from replication connection
I'm not sure this really fixes the problem. If we add a separate
replication privilege, then presumably superusers will automatically
have that privilege, in accord with our usual policy on such things.
So potentially someone could still set up replication using a
superuser account and then they could still get bitten by this
problem.
> 3. Your proposal
> Treat superuser replication connection like non-superuser one
Well, only for this one very specific purpose. I would adjust the
docs like this:
Determines the number of connection "slots" that are reserved for
connections by PostgreSQL superusers. At most max_connections
connections can ever be active simultaneously. Whenever the number of
active concurrent connections is at least max_connections minus
superuser_reserved_connections, new connections will be accepted only
for superusers, and no new replication connections will be accepted.
I think that's pretty simple and clear. If we want to burn an extra
sentence explaining what this is all about, we could add:
(If replication connections were permitted to use the reserved
connection slots, an installation with max_wal_senders set to a value
greater than or equal to the value set for
superuser_reserved_connections might find that no reserved connections
remained for interactive access to the database.)
> Since 3. is confusing for me, I like 1. or 2.
What do others think?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-20 14:08:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-04-20 13:47:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-20 14:05:09 | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-20 13:57:57 | Re: plpgsql GUC variable: custom or built-in? |