On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hmm. It seems like this match is making MaxConnections no longer mean
the maximum number of connections, but rather the maximum number of
non-replication connections. I don't think I support that
definitional change, and I'm kinda surprised if this is sufficient to
implement it anyway (e.g. see InitProcGlobal()).
I don't think the implementation is correct, but why don't you like the
definitional change? The set of things you can do from replication
connections are completely different from a normal connection. So using
separate "pools" for them seems to make sense.
That they end up allocating similar internal data seems to be an
implementation detail to me.
Because replication connections are still "connections". If I tell
the system I want to allow 100 connections to the server, it should
allow 100 connections, not 110 or 95 or any other number.

I'm also not sure the decision about whether something is a WAL sender
is made early enough for the distinction to really make sense. WAL
senders actually start off, from the postmaster's POV, as regular
backends, and then become walsenders "on the fly".

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 6 of 6 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
postedJul 11, '13 at 5:31p
activeAug 8, '13 at 1:35p



site design / logo © 2018 Grokbase