From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_connections and standby server |
Date: | 2015-08-11 05:57:46 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS3TLaD4bTAkdpYz0-2=X-+Ksubbs3mrs_e7nNvdFi7NQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> I think this is because pg_control on the standby remembers that the
>> previous primary server's max_connections = 1100 even if the standby
>> server fails to start. Shouldn't we update pg_control file only when
>> standby succeeds to start?
>
> Somebody refresh my memory as to why we have this restriction (that is,
> slave's max_connections >= master's max_connections) in the first place?
> Seems like it should not be a necessary requirement, and working towards
> getting rid of it would be far better than any other answer.
If I recall correctly, that's because KnownAssignedXIDs and the lock
table need to be large enough on the standby for the largest snapshot
possible (procarray.c).
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-08-11 06:00:07 | Re: max_connections and standby server |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2015-08-11 05:53:59 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |