Re: Bugs in superuser_reserved_connections and max_wal_senders vs max_connections

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: Bugs in superuser_reserved_connections and max_wal_senders vs max_connections
Дата
Msg-id CABUevEx6dSFApD4HR3stNfEOWOd8StLnJXng=T4FNJs-k1d8gg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Bugs in superuser_reserved_connections and max_wal_senders vs max_connections  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> The check in PostmasterMain():
>>       if (ReservedBackends >= MaxBackends)
>>       {
>>               write_stderr("%s: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than
>> max_connections\n", progname);
>>               ExitPostmaster(1);
>>       }
>
>> should probably check against MaxConnections instead of MaxBackends, I think?
>
> Yeah, this code probably dates from before there was a difference.

That was my guess as well.


> In general, I'd bet that this is not the only place where the wrong one
> of those variables is being consulted.

Probably :)

I've fixed this issue. Didn't spot another one with a quick check, but
there's quite possibly something hiding somewhere, yes :)

-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [WIP] Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Следующее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Prevent restored WAL files from being archived again Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover