| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements |
| Date: | 2010-04-21 01:40:09 |
| Message-ID: | n2v3f0b79eb1004201840ze33123a9xd96c11525f32532e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 3. Your proposal
>> Treat superuser replication connection like non-superuser one
>
> Well, only for this one very specific purpose. I would adjust the
> docs like this:
>
> Determines the number of connection "slots" that are reserved for
> connections by PostgreSQL superusers. At most max_connections
> connections can ever be active simultaneously. Whenever the number of
> active concurrent connections is at least max_connections minus
> superuser_reserved_connections, new connections will be accepted only
> for superusers, and no new replication connections will be accepted.
>
> I think that's pretty simple and clear.
Yeah, I'm sold.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-21 16:10:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-20 23:53:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-04-21 01:50:26 | Re: [GENERAL] trouble with to_char('L') |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-21 01:13:09 | Re: Vacuum cancels autovacuum error message confusing? |