On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > The thing is, when dealing with new features, we reduce our overall
> > maintenance burden if we get it right the first time. Obviously it's
> > too late for major changes, but minor adjustments to maintain the POLA
> > seem like exactly what we SHOULD be doing right now.
>
> Oh, I agree. Since we have a separate WALSender limit, it seems
> counter-intuitive and difficult-to-admin to have the WALSenders also
> limited by superuser_connections. They should be their own separate
> connection pool, just like the other "background" processes.
>
> However, if this was somehow infeasible, it wouldn't be hard to
> document. That's all.
+1
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com