On 2013-10-15 10:29:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
+many > 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 connections, right? So you withdraw your earlier objection to that? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
