On 10/15/2013 07:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: >> Josh said we should treat replication connections in a separate "pool" >> from normal database connections, right? So you withdraw your earlier >> objection to that? > > I don't think that's what he said. Here's what I was referring to:
To clarify: I do, indeed, support the idea of treating replication connections as a pool outside of max_connections. Here's why: FATAL: connection limit exceeded for non-superusers SHOW max_connections; 100 SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pg_stat_activity; 94 SHOW superuser_reserved_connections; 3 ???? ... search around quite a bit, eventually figure out that you have three replication connections open. We've already set up an illogical and hard-to-troubleshoot situation where replication connections do not appear in pg_stat_activity, yet they are counted against max_connections. You could argue that the same is true of superuser_reserved_connections, but there's a couple reasons why it isn't: 1) if superusers are actually connected, that shows up in pg_stat_activity (and given how many of our users run their apps as superuser, they get to max_connections out anyway). 2) the error message spells out that there may be superuser connections available. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
