On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:14 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
OK. Might be worth a short comment. > > 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. I'm inclined to commit it to master and not back-patch. It doesn't seem important enough to perturb translations. Tushar seems to have a point about pg_use_reserved_connections vs. pg_use_reserved_backends. I think we should standardize on the former, as backends is an internal term. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
