Re: Do all superuser processes count toward superuser_reserved_connections? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jeremy Finzel
Subject Re: Do all superuser processes count toward superuser_reserved_connections?
Date
Msg-id CAMa1XUiA5cO=23GW6A_uFGDSkF9vzEwhLNnbLpW5b=Hi4A_Tdw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do all superuser processes count towardsuperuser_reserved_connections?  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
Responses Re: Do all superuser processes count towardsuperuser_reserved_connections?  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:48 AM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 3/14/19 8:23 AM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> I don't find a clear mention in the docs of superuser processes that are
> exempt from counting toward superuser_reserved_connections.  So I would
> think that it's possible that postgres autovac workers ought to count
> toward that.  Am I wrong about that?  I actually have the same question

AFAICK autovacuum workers do not use the connections referred to above.
The details can be found here:

https://doxygen.postgresql.org/autovacuum_8c.html

Not sure I can really grok that and how it answers the question.  Are you saying if you have max_connections set to 10, you could theoretically have 20 autovac processes still?
 
> about pglogical replication background workers and manager, which also
> run as postgres.

But the actual connection can be by a different user:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/logical-replication-security.html


But I am speaking of pglogical, which does require superuser, last I checked :).

It does use replication slots, but there are processes corresponding to each subscription.  I have some databases with dozens of them.

Thanks,
Jeremy

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: Do all superuser processes count towardsuperuser_reserved_connections?
Next
From: Gunther
Date:
Subject: Re: Facing issue in using special characters