| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Connection slots reserved for replication |
| Date: | 2018-11-20 18:13:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20181120181302.GG3415@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:02 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On the other hand, If we always reserve max_wal_senders slots
> > available slots for normal backend will get decreased in the next
> > release, which require for users to re-confiugre the max_connection.
> > But I felt this behavior seems more natural than the current one, so I
> > think the re-configuration can be acceptable for users.
>
> Maybe what we should do instead is not consider max_wal_senders a part of
> the total number of connections, and instead size the things that needs to
> be sized by them by max_connections + max_wal_senders. That seems more
> logical given how the parameters are named as well.
I tend to agree with having max_connections + max_wal_senders.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-20 18:19:21 | Re: CF app feature request |
| Previous Message | Mithun Cy | 2018-11-20 17:54:26 | Re: mysql_fdw crash |