Re: [HACKERS] TODO Done. Superuser backend slot reservations - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] TODO Done. Superuser backend slot reservations
Date
Msg-id 200208261616.g7QGGWm11376@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] TODO Done. Superuser backend slot reservations  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] TODO Done. Superuser backend slot reservations
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk> writes:
> > I was taking the line that the last slots in the array are
> > reserved. Those are not going to be taken by non su connections.
>
> But that doesn't do the job, does it?  My view of the feature is that
> when there are at least MaxBackends - ReservedBackends slots in use (by
> either su or non-su connections) then no new non-su jobs should be let
> in.  For example, if the system is full (with a mix of su and non-su
> jobs) and one non-su job quits, don't we want to hold that slot for a
> possible su connection?
>
> Your approach does have the advantage of being very cheap to test
> (I think my semantics would require counting the active backends),
> but I'm not sure that it really does what we want.

Tom is right.  If the last two slots are held by two long-running
super-user backends, and the slots fill, there will be no reserved
slots. The trick is that when the maximum number of backends is almost
exceeded, only let the supuer-user in.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_attribute.attisinherited ?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_locks cleanup