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