Re: Bugs in superuser_reserved_connections and max_wal_senders vs max_connections

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bugs in superuser_reserved_connections and max_wal_senders vs max_connections
Date: 2012-08-10 12:57:55
Message-ID: CABUevEx6dSFApD4HR3stNfEOWOd8StLnJXng=T4FNJs-k1d8gg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> The check in PostmasterMain():
>> if (ReservedBackends >= MaxBackends)
>> {
>> write_stderr("%s: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than
>> max_connections\n", progname);
>> ExitPostmaster(1);
>> }
>
>> should probably check against MaxConnections instead of MaxBackends, I think?
>
> Yeah, this code probably dates from before there was a difference.

That was my guess as well.

> In general, I'd bet that this is not the only place where the wrong one
> of those variables is being consulted.

Probably :)

I've fixed this issue. Didn't spot another one with a quick check, but
there's quite possibly something hiding somewhere, yes :)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-08-10 15:21:52 error handling in logging hooks
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2012-08-10 05:25:39 Re: [WIP] Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation