From: Robert Haas on 21 Apr 2010 12:10 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: >> Current logic says we hit the connection limit if: > >> if (!am_superuser && >> ReservedBackends > 0 && >> !HaveNFreeProcs(ReservedBackends)) > >> Couldn't we just change this to: > >> if ((!am_superuser || am_walsender) && >> ReservedBackends > 0 && >> !HaveNFreeProcs(ReservedBackends)) > > As of the patch I just committed, that code is not reached anymore by a > walsender process. However, it shouldn't be hard to put a similar test > into the walsender code path. 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: /* * If walsender, we're done here --- we don't want to connect to any * particular database. */ In fact, in some ways, it seems better to put it up there. If the database is really being flooded with connection attempts, we want to ephemerally consume a backend slot for as little time as possible... ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 21 Apr 2010 13:56 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> 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.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: psql: edit function, show function commandspatch Next: [HACKERS] Alias to rollback keyword |