On 15-10-2013 14:34, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 07:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>>> Josh said we should treat replication connections in a separate "pool"
>>> from normal database connections, right? So you withdraw your earlier
>>
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:09:57 +0530
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Gibheer
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:52:57 +0530
>> >> Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:09:57 +0530
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Gibheer
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:52:57 +0530
> >> Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Gibheer
> >>> wrote
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Gibheer wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:52:57 +0530
>> Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Gibheer
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:38:17 +0530
>>> > Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> >
>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:52:57 +0530
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Gibheer
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:38:17 +0530
>> > Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer
>> >> wrote:
>>
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:52:57 +0530
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Gibheer
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:38:17 +0530
> > Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
> >> > Amit Kapila wro
On 10/15/2013 07:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund
> 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
On 2013-10-15 10:36:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> 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 conn
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 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 connection
On 2013-10-15 10:29:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Amit Kapila 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 need
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Amit Kapila 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 entiti
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-14 10:26:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 10/13/2013 01:38 AM, Gibheer wrote:
>> > So it will ensure that max_wal_senders is used for reserving
>> >> connection slots from being used by non-super user connections. I find
>> >> n
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/13/2013 01:38 AM, Gibheer wrote:
>> So it will ensure that max_wal_senders is used for reserving
>>> connection slots from being used by non-super user connections. I find
>>> new usage of max_wal_senders acceptable, if anyone else think
On 10/14/2013 10:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Imo the complications around this prove my (way earlier) point that it'd
> be much better to treat replication connections as something entirely
> different to normal SQL connections. There's really not much overlap
> here and while there's some philos
On 2013-10-14 10:26:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/13/2013 01:38 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> > So it will ensure that max_wal_senders is used for reserving
> >> connection slots from being used by non-super user connections. I find
> >> new usage of max_wal_senders acceptable, if anyone else thinks
On 10/13/2013 01:38 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> So it will ensure that max_wal_senders is used for reserving
>> connection slots from being used by non-super user connections. I find
>> new usage of max_wal_senders acceptable, if anyone else thinks
>> otherwise, please let us know.
I think otherwise.
Ch
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Gibheer wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:38:17 +0530
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
>> > Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:38:17 +0530
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
> > Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Hmm. It seems like this match
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> >>> Hmm. It seems like this match is making MaxConnections no longer
>> >>> mean the maximum number of con
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:00:51 +0530
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Gibheer
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:55:24 +0530
> > Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
> >> > Amit Kapila wr
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Gibheer wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:55:24 +0530
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
>> > Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:55:24 +0530
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
> > Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Hmm. It seems like this match
I'd received an email from Gibheer suggesting it be move due to lack of time to
work on it. I can certainly move it back if that's no longer the case.
On Oct 9, 2013, at 23:25, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
> Amit
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> >>> Hmm. It seems like this match is making MaxConnections no longer
>> >>> mean the maximum number of con
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:39:55 +0530
Amit Kapila wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >>> Hmm. It seems like this match is making MaxConnections no longer
> >>> mean the maximum number of connections, but rather the maximum
> >>> number of non-repli
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hmm. It seems like this match is making MaxConnections no longer mean
>> the maximum number of connections, but rather the maximum number of
>> non-replication connections. I don't think I support that
>> definitional change, and I'm kinda
On 2013-08-02 08:16:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> > here is an update off my patch based on the discussion with Marko
> > Tiikkaja and Andres Freund.
> >
> > Marko and I had the idea of introducing reserved connections based on
> > roles as it wou
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:16:15 -0400
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Gibheer
> wrote:
> > here is an update off my patch based on the discussion with Marko
> > Tiikkaja and Andres Freund.
> >
> > Marko and I had the idea of introducing reserved connections based
> > on roles a
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Gibheer wrote:
> here is an update off my patch based on the discussion with Marko
> Tiikkaja and Andres Freund.
>
> Marko and I had the idea of introducing reserved connections based on
> roles as it would create a way to garantuee specific roles to connect
> when
Hi,
here is an update off my patch based on the discussion with Marko
Tiikkaja and Andres Freund.
Marko and I had the idea of introducing reserved connections based on
roles as it would create a way to garantuee specific roles to connect
when other roles use up all connections for whatever reason
Hi,
this patch introduces a new configuration flag
replication_reserved_connections to reserve connection slots for
replication in the same way superuser_reserved_connections works for
superusers.
This helps in cases where the application opens connections until
max_connections is reached. A slav
31 matches
Mail list logo
