Robert Haas writes:
> ...shouldn't we move the "tests", plural, rather than just the one?
> It seems right to reject new SR connections during shutdown.
Yeah; you'd also need to adjust both of them to consider am_walsender.
(IOW, we want to treat SR connections as non-superuser for both tests.)
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Thanks for the heads up. It doesn't look hard to put a similar test
>> in the walsender code path, but is there any reason to duplicate the
>> code? Seems like we might be able to just put this test (with the
>> necessar
Robert Haas writes:
> Thanks for the heads up. It doesn't look hard to put a similar test
> in the walsender code path, but is there any reason to duplicate the
> code? Seems like we might be able to just put this test (with the
> necessary modification) right before this comment:
Hm, actually
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Current logic says we hit the connection limit if:
>
>> if (!am_superuser &&
>> ReservedBackends > 0 &&
>> !HaveNFreeProcs(ReservedBackends))
>
>> Couldn't we just change this to:
>
>
