From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikolay Samokhvalov <nikolay@samokhvalov.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18094: max max_connections cannot be set
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 09:57:05 -0400
Message-ID: <1872108.1694181425@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwaJ8d_1r-veqp6cnKYGypi+sSk9DScs-z6b-DM1WXR-DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18094-884970cc4c015d42@postgresql.org>
<1716616.1694103921@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CANNMO+LUmkXtBR57on0a6qFtbJgjeoR56uan5Ru4BsW0TxbYjQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKFQuwaJ8d_1r-veqp6cnKYGypi+sSk9DScs-z6b-DM1WXR-DA@mail.gmail.com>
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:25 PM Nikolay Samokhvalov <nikolay@samokhvalov.com>
> wrote:
>> nik=# select max_val from pg_settings where name = 'max_connections';
>> max_val
>> ---------
>> 262143
>> (1 row)
>>
>> -- here is why
> Glossed right over that...yeah, quite a few settings seem to have a max_val
> of "unsigned numeric", I'd be curious whether they all have some
> non-datatype maximum recognized during runtime that pg_settings is unable
> to see.
Yeah, there are for example plenty of entries with max_val of INT_MAX,
but that doesn't necessarily mean you can set them that high. The
max_val is *a* constraint, it's not the *only* constraint.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, nikolay@samokhvalov.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18094: max max_connections cannot be set
In-Reply-To: <1872108.1694181425@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox