On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:02 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 03:42:03PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Thanks to you both. I have committed these patches.
>
> Thanks! Does this need a catversion bump?
I was surprised by this question because I thought I'd included one.
But it
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 03:42:03PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Thanks to you both. I have committed these patches.
Thanks! Does this need a catversion bump?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 1:10 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Thanks, this is fixed now with the latest patches.
>
> Thank you for reviewing.
Thanks to you both. I have committed these patches.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 07:04:58PM +0530, tushar wrote:
> On 1/19/23 6:28 PM, tushar wrote:
>> There is one typo , for the doc changes, it is mentioned
>> "pg_use_reserved_backends" but i think it supposed to be
>> "pg_use_reserved_connections"
>> under Table 22.1. Predefined Roles.
>
> Thanks,
On 1/19/23 6:28 PM, tushar wrote:
There is one typo , for the doc changes, it is mentioned
"pg_use_reserved_backends" but i think it supposed to be
"pg_use_reserved_connections"
under Table 22.1. Predefined Roles.
Thanks, this is fixed now with the latest patches.
--
regards,tushar
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:46 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Thanks. I'd move it to the inner indentation level so it's closer to
> > the test at issue.
>
> I meant for it to cover the call to HaveNFreeProcs() as well since the same
> idea applies. I left it the same for now, but if you still think
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 02:17:35PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:54 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> > OK. Might be worth a short comment.
>>
>> I added one.
>
> Thanks. I'd move it to the inner indentation level so it's closer to
> the test at issue.
I meant for it to
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:54 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> > OK. Might be worth a short comment.
>
> I added one.
Thanks. I'd move it to the inner indentation level so it's closer to
the test at issue.
I would also suggest reordering the documentation and the
postgresql.conf.sample file so that
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:40:53AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:14 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I confused?
>>
>> I believe < is correct. At
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:14 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I confused?
>
> I believe < is correct. At this point, the new backend will have already
> claimed a proc struct,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 9:21 AM tushar wrote:
> that is not true because the superuser can still able to connect,
It is true, but because superusers have all privileges.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 6:50 PM tushar
wrote:
> and in the error message too
>
> [edb@centos7tushar bin]$ ./psql postgres -U r2
>
> psql: error: connection to server on socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432" failed:
> FATAL: remaining connection slots are reserved for roles with privileges
> of
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 6:28 PM tushar
wrote:
> On 1/19/23 2:44 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I
> confused?
> > I believe < is correct. At this point, the new backend
On 1/19/23 2:44 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I confused?
I believe < is correct. At this point, the new backend will have already
claimed a proc struct, so if the number of
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Should (nfree < SuperuserReservedBackends) be using <=, or am I confused?
I believe < is correct. At this point, the new backend will have already
claimed a proc struct, so if the number of remaining free slots equals the
number of
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 2:00 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:28:57AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > In general, looks good. I think this will often call HaveNFreeProcs
> > twice, though, and that would be better to avoid, e.g.
>
> I should have thought of this. This is fixed
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:28:57AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> In general, looks good. I think this will often call HaveNFreeProcs
> twice, though, and that would be better to avoid, e.g.
I should have thought of this. This is fixed in v2.
> In the common case where we hit neither limit, this
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:15 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Great. Here is a first attempt at the patch.
In general, looks good. I think this will often call HaveNFreeProcs
twice, though, and that would be better to avoid, e.g.
if (!am_superuser && !am_walsender && (SuperuserReservedBackends +
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:42 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> If we create a new batch of reserved connections, only roles with
>> privileges of pg_use_reserved_connections would be able to connect if the
>> number of remaining slots is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:42 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Alright. The one design question I have is whether this should be a new
> set of reserved connections or replace superuser_reserved_connections
> entirely.
I think it should definitely be something new, not a replacement.
> If we create a
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:06:10PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 5:37 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 02:29:56PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > 4. You can reserve a small number of connections for the superuser
>> > with superuser_reserved_connections,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 5:37 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 02:29:56PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 4. You can reserve a small number of connections for the superuser
> > with superuser_reserved_connections, but there's no way to do a
> > similar thing for any other user. As
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 02:29:56PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 4. You can reserve a small number of connections for the superuser
> with superuser_reserved_connections, but there's no way to do a
> similar thing for any other user. As mentioned above, a CREATEROLE
> user could set connection
Due to cf5eb37c5ee0cc54c80d95c1695d7fca1f7c68cb,
e5b8a4c098ad6add39626a14475148872cd687e0, and prior commits touching
related code, it should now be possible to consider handing out
CREATEROLE as a reasonable alternative to handing out SUPERUSER. Prior
to cf5eb37c5ee0cc54c80d95c1695d7fca1f7c68cb,
24 matches
Mail list logo
