It has come to my attention that when a user has a CONNECTION LIMIT set, and they make use of parallel query, that their queries can fail due to the connection limit being exceeded.
Simple test case: postgres=# CREATE USER user1 LOGIN CONNECTION LIMIT 2; CREATE ROLE postgres=# \c postgres user1 You are now connected TO DATABASE "postgres" AS USER "user1". postgres=> CREATE TABLE t1 AS (SELECT i FROM GENERATE_SERIES(1,6000000) s(i)); SELECT 6000000 postgres=> SET max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 2; SET postgres=> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t1; ERROR: too many connections FOR ROLE "user1" CONTEXT: parallel worker Now, as I understand it, during the design of parallel query, it was designed in such a way that nodeGather could perform all of the work in the main process in the event that no workers were available, and that the only user visible evidence of this would be the query would be slower than it would otherwise be. After a little bit of looking around I see that CountUserBackends() does not ignore the parallel workers, and counts these as "CONNECTIONS". It's probably debatable to weather these are connections or not, but I do see that max_connections is separate from max_worker_processes, per: /* the extra unit accounts for the autovacuum launcher */ MaxBackends = MaxConnections + autovacuum_max_workers + 1 + max_worker_processes; so the two don't stomp on each other's feet, which makes me think that a parallel worker should not consume a user connection, since it's not eating into max_connections. Also this is convenient fix for this would be to have CountUserBackends() ignore parallel workers completely. The alternatives I've thought of are would be to make some additional checks in RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker() to make sure we don't get more workers than the user would be allowed, but that would add more code between the lock and increase contention, and we'd also somehow need to find a way to reserve the connections until the parallel workers started, so they were not taken by another concurrent connection in the meantime. This all sounds pretty horrid. Perhaps we can provide greater control of parallel workers per user in a future release to allow admins who are concerned about users hogging all of the parallel workers. Yet that's likely premature, as we don't have a per query nob for that yet. Thoughts? -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers