Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Nathan Bossart
Тема Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet
Дата
Msg-id 20230119175421.GA3934756@nathanxps13
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:40:53AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:14 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I confused?
>>
>> I believe < is correct.  At this point, the new backend will have already
>> claimed a proc struct, so if the number of remaining free slots equals the
>> number of reserved slots, it is okay.
> 
> OK. Might be worth a short comment.

I added one.

>> > What's the deal with removing "and no new replication connections will
>> > be accepted" from the documentation? Is the existing documentation
>> > just wrong? If so, should we fix that first? And maybe delete
>> > "non-replication" from the error message that says "remaining
>> > connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser
>> > connections"? It seems like right now the comments say that
>> > replication connections are a completely separate pool of connections,
>> > but the documentation and the error message make it sound otherwise.
>> > If that's true, then one of them is wrong, and I think it's the
>> > docs/error message. Or am I just misreading it?
>>
>> I think you are right.  This seems to have been missed in ea92368.  I moved
>> this part to a new patch that should probably be back-patched to v12.
> 
> I'm inclined to commit it to master and not back-patch. It doesn't
> seem important enough to perturb translations.

That seems reasonable to me.

> Tushar seems to have a point about pg_use_reserved_connections vs.
> pg_use_reserved_backends. I think we should standardize on the former,
> as backends is an internal term.

Oops.  This is what I meant to do.  I probably flubbed it because I was
wondering why the parameter uses "connections" and the variable uses
"backends," especially considering that the variable for max_connections is
called MaxConnections.  I went ahead and renamed everything to use
"connections."

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tomas Vondra
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add semi-join pushdown to postgres_fdw
Следующее
От: Zheng Li
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Support logical replication of DDLs