On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > The thing is, when dealing with new features, we reduce our overall > > maintenance burden if we get it right the first time. Obviously it's > > too late for major changes, but minor adjustments to maintain the POLA > > seem like exactly what we SHOULD be doing right now. > > Oh, I agree. Since we have a separate WALSender limit, it seems > counter-intuitive and difficult-to-admin to have the WALSenders also > limited by superuser_connections. They should be their own separate > connection pool, just like the other "background" processes. > > However, if this was somehow infeasible, it wouldn't be hard to > document. That's all.
+1 -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
