Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f-eZi0jHEtLJoUnrWY3exj6DnHVp4iwB=oeUsCyAxacMQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 27 January 2017 at 03:53, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, this had slipped through the cracks -- I'm having a very hard
> time keeping up with the flow of patches and emails.  But it looks
> good to me, except that it seems like CountDBBackends() needs the same
> fix (and probably a corresponding documentation update).

Thanks for looking at this.

Looks like there's a few other usages of CountDBBackends() which
require background workers to be counted too, so I ended up creating
CountDBConnections() as I didn't really think adding a bool flag to
CountDBBackends was so nice.

I thought about renaming CountUserBackends() to become
CountUserConnections(), but I've not. Although, perhaps its better to
break any third party stuff that uses that so that authors can review
which behaviour they need rather than have their extension silently
break?

David



-- 
 David Rowley                   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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Create a separate test file for exercising system views
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Create a separate test file for exercising system views