On 2013-10-15 10:29:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we think this way, then may be we should have max_user_connections
> > instead of max_connections and then max_wal_connections. But still
> > there are other's like pg_basebackup who needs connections and
> > tomorrow there can be new such entities which need connection.
> > Also we might need to have different infrastructure in code to make
> > these options available to users.
> > I think having different parameters to configure maximum connections
> > for different entities can complicate both code as well as user's job.
> Renaming max_connections is far too big a compatibility break to
> consider without far more benefit than what this patch is aiming at.
> I'm not prepared to endure the number of beatings I'd have to take if
> we did that.


> But I also agree that making max_wal_senders act as both a minimum and
> a maximum is no good.  +1 to everything Josh Berkus said.

Josh said we should treat replication connections in a separate "pool"
from normal database connections, right? So you withdraw your earlier
objection to that?


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to