| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO Done. Superuser backend slot reservations |
| Date: | 2002-08-26 03:56:04 |
| Message-ID: | 14028.1030334164@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> - Therefore, the # of backend slots created is
> (max_connections + max_admin_connections)
I tend to agree with Bruce on this: max_connections means
max_connections. Therefore, the number of backend slots is
max_connections, of which max_connections - max_admin_connections
are available to non-superusers.
(There is provision in the existing code for one extra child process
for checkpoints, but it's not a "real" backend and so it's reasonable
not to count it against max_connections.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-08-26 03:58:32 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.2.2 and docs |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-08-26 03:46:35 | Re: Deadlock situation using foreign keys (reproduceable) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-26 04:04:24 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO Done. Superuser backend slot reservations |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-26 02:39:15 | pg_locks cleanup |