Thread

1. don't allow walsender to consume superuser_reserved_connection slots, or during shutdown

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-04-22T01:11:50Z

   On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
   > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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.)
   
   [ subject changed, recipient list trimmed ]
   
   Here's the fine patch.  The actual code changes are simple and seem to
   work as expected, but I struggled a bit with the phrasing of the
   messages.  Feel free to suggest improvements.  Also, I wasn't sure if
   there was somewhere in the documentation where we discussed the
   restriction that only superusers can connect during shutdown.  If
   there is such a place, we should update that, too.
   
   ...Robert
   

2. Re: don't allow walsender to consume superuser_reserved_connection slots, or during shutdown

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-04-22T02:01:17Z

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
   > Here's the fine patch.  The actual code changes are simple and seem to
   > work as expected, but I struggled a bit with the phrasing of the
   > messages.  Feel free to suggest improvements.
   
   Stick with the original wording?  I don't really see a need to change it.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

3. Re: don't allow walsender to consume superuser_reserved_connection slots, or during shutdown

   Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2010-04-22T02:27:26Z

   On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
   > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
   >> Here's the fine patch.  The actual code changes are simple and seem to
   >> work as expected, but I struggled a bit with the phrasing of the
   >> messages.  Feel free to suggest improvements.
   >
   > Stick with the original wording?  I don't really see a need to change it.
   
   How about?:
   
   if ((!am_superuser || am_walsender) &&
   	ReservedBackends > 0 &&
   	!HaveNFreeProcs(ReservedBackends))
   {
   	if (am_walsender)
   		ereport(FATAL,
   			(errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_CONNECTIONS),
   			 errmsg("remaining connection slots are reserved for
   non-replication superuser connections")));
   	else
   		ereport(FATAL,
   			(errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_CONNECTIONS),
   			 errmsg("connection limit exceeded for non-superusers")));
   }
   
   Regards,
   
   -- 
   Fujii Masao
   NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
   NTT Open Source Software Center
   
   

4. Re: don't allow walsender to consume superuser_reserved_connection slots, or during shutdown

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-04-22T13:23:40Z

   On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
   > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
   >> Here's the fine patch.  The actual code changes are simple and seem to
   >> work as expected, but I struggled a bit with the phrasing of the
   >> messages.  Feel free to suggest improvements.
   >
   > Stick with the original wording?  I don't really see a need to change it.
   
   I don't think that's a good idea.  If we just say that the remaining
   connection slots are for superusers, someone will inevitably ask us
   why their superuser replication can't connect.  I think it's important
   to phrase things as accurately as possible.
   
   ...Robert
   
   

5. Re: don't allow walsender to consume superuser_reserved_connection slots, or during shutdown

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-04-26T10:54:23Z

   On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
   > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
   >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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.)
   >
   > [ subject changed, recipient list trimmed ]
   >
   > Here's the fine patch.  The actual code changes are simple and seem to
   > work as expected, but I struggled a bit with the phrasing of the
   > messages.  Feel free to suggest improvements.  Also, I wasn't sure if
   > there was somewhere in the documentation where we discussed the
   > restriction that only superusers can connect during shutdown.  If
   > there is such a place, we should update that, too.
   
   I have committed this as-is.  We can further change the error messages
   if we like, but there didn't seem to be a clear consensus on any
   particular change from what I have here.
   
   ...Robert