On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> 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 entities which need connection. > Also we might need to have different infrastructure in code to make > these options available to users. > I think having different parameters to configure maximum connections > for different entities can complicate both code as well as user's job.
Renaming max_connections is far too big a compatibility break to consider without far more benefit than what this patch is aiming at. I'm not prepared to endure the number of beatings I'd have to take if we did that. 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
