From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_connections documentation |
Date: | 2015-01-10 06:06:52 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J5DuB-zHufzF+kHCdaPop4sHH4jG0h9GSq94ECGr98bQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I'm surprised to see that the docs make no mention of how
max_connections, max_worker_processes and autovacuum_max_workers (don't)
relate. I couldn't remember and had to actually look at the code. I'd like
to clarify this in the max_connecitons section of the documents by doing
s/connections/user connections/ and including the formula for MaxBackends
(MaxBackends = MaxConnections + autovacuum_max_workers + 1 +
max_worker_processes). I'll also mention that any postgres_fdw connections
are considered user connections.
>
I think it makes sense to add such a clarification in docs, however
not sure if specifying along with max_connections parameter is
good idea as the formula is somewhat internal and is not directly
related to max_connections. How about specifying in below page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/connect-estab.html
>
> Also, my understanding is that the parallel stuff will continue to fall
under max_worker_processes?
Yes.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-01-10 08:10:21 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-01-10 05:22:20 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |