|From:||Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I confused?
I believe < is correct. At this point, the new backend will have already
claimed a proc struct, so if the number of remaining free slots equals the
number of reserved slots, it is okay.
> What's the deal with removing "and no new replication connections will
> be accepted" from the documentation? Is the existing documentation
> just wrong? If so, should we fix that first? And maybe delete
> "non-replication" from the error message that says "remaining
> connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser
> connections"? It seems like right now the comments say that
> replication connections are a completely separate pool of connections,
> but the documentation and the error message make it sound otherwise.
> If that's true, then one of them is wrong, and I think it's the
> docs/error message. Or am I just misreading it?
I think you are right. This seems to have been missed in ea92368. I moved
this part to a new patch that should probably be back-patched to v12.
On that note, I wonder if it's worth changing the "sorry, too many clients
already" message to make it clear that max_connections has been reached.
IME some users are confused by this error, and I think it would be less
confusing if it pointed to the parameter that governs the number of
connection slots. I'll create a new thread for this.
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2023-01-18 21:14:21||Re: Extracting cross-version-upgrade knowledge from buildfarm client|
|Previous Message||Peter Geoghegan||2023-01-18 21:12:27||Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation|