| From: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ahmed Et-tanany" <ahmed(dot)ettanany(at)aiven(dot)io>, "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add max_logical_replication_slots GUC |
| Date: | 2026-01-29 13:21:48 |
| Message-ID: | 09577e49-f53e-4829-916c-662bbed0922b@app.fastmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 29, 2026, at 10:01 AM, Ahmed Et-tanany wrote:
>
> That's a great point! I'm thinking we could potentially avoid
> introducing a separate max_logical_wal_senders GUC by reusing
> max_logical_replication_slots to decide whether a WAL sender can
> start for logical replication.
>
> This way, the limit on logical slots would also indirectly cap
> the number of logical WAL senders, helping protect physical
> replication connections without adding another configuration
> parameter.
>
You have 2 resources (walsender and replication slot). You are restricting a
resource based on a configuration from another resource. That seems a potential
source of confusion.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matheus Alcantara | 2026-01-29 13:32:04 | Re: [PATCH] llvmjit: always add the simplifycfg pass |
| Previous Message | Ahmed Et-tanany | 2026-01-29 13:01:22 | Re: [PATCH] Add max_logical_replication_slots GUC |