Re: max_connections documentation

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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