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

On 31 March 2010 15:45, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > 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)"
>
> Oh, that's much better than anything I thought of. +1.
>
> ...Robert
>
>
That provides more explicit information. :)