| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Gibheer <gibheer(at)zero-knowledge(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Mike Blackwell <maiku41(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for reserved connections for replication users |
| Date: | 2013-10-15 14:29:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYp85gb1b_t6Bk5GVZH2P0StC_iUCCEH3xjPzsyW5=oHg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If we think this way, then may be we should have max_user_connections
> instead of max_connections and then max_wal_connections. But still
> there are other's like pg_basebackup who needs connections and
> tomorrow there can be new such entities which need connection.
> Also we might need to have different infrastructure in code to make
> these options available to users.
> I think having different parameters to configure maximum connections
> for different entities can complicate both code as well as user's job.
Renaming max_connections is far too big a compatibility break to
consider without far more benefit than what this patch is aiming at.
I'm not prepared to endure the number of beatings I'd have to take if
we did that.
But I also agree that making max_wal_senders act as both a minimum and
a maximum is no good. +1 to everything Josh Berkus said.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-15 14:34:24 | Re: Patch for reserved connections for replication users |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-15 14:27:30 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.2 |