Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97601634029; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:15:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25842-01; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:14:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-gx0-f223.google.com (mail-gx0-f223.google.com [209.85.217.223]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C3E63378D; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:14:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: by gxk23 with SMTP id 23so588915gxk.15 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:14:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FJjSUW63nCLTeGfe47Jixx7LQQU5twNjOxnSTogs0Oc=; b=ieoYO9HnZSwGmZRqZsJAJEgTR8Dg3QavL5+DKN7ZSHmyeM74KrRiRmulkI2lJ2CDgD 4QLSnf4FcVUguM8Xpk0pePrmTRwM3ffL90ELWiPzDbsOuOMoDckM790RxCDLNx8JmlSv ST5u6w3FMbVscUJ5c+y4BrKTudjHLBPuROVC4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Wbt45MyHIITEJ83xZCGuZvp3oMsi7RzVKpvcLwf5iqq+CF2/apgZjZJabRzXhRZpzi dFTseSJBL7zhFR6cvS859A0x56pczUFOvSPYpGAsenAnqHFAjNoc0E0UqiQG6r5a3UNg miq+gMhCuNepAcWRoRvza8/NcI2TsYNIqrn+E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.253.9 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:14:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3f0b79eb1003300152g5327eb47w8f9aecae6002b215@mail.gmail.com> <4BB3B2ED.5080606@enterprisedb.com> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:14:50 +0900 Received: by 10.101.170.12 with SMTP id x12mr1052507ano.236.1270088090760; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication document improvements From: Fujii Masao To: Robert Haas Cc: Heikki Linnakangas , PostgreSQL-development , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, FS_REPLICA=1.041, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA=0.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/34 X-Sequence-Number: 5399 On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Fujii Masao wrot= e: >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Robert Haas wro= te: >>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Fujii Masao wr= ote: >>>>> That's an interesting point, do streaming replication connections >>>>> consume superuser_reserved_connections slots? >>>> >>>> Yes. Since SR connection is superuser connection, setting >>>> superuser_reserved_connections appropriately would be useful >>>> to prevent non-superuser connections from blocking the connection >>>> from the standby. >>> >>> I think this is wacky, especially since we'd someday like to have >>> replication be a separate privilege from superuser. =A0I think we shoul= d >>> change this. >> >> You mean that we should change replication connection not to consume >> superuser_reserved_connections slots in 9.0? > > Yes. Preventing superuser connections from consuming superuser_reserved_connecti= ons slots seems strange for me. So I'm leaning toward just removing superuser privilege from replication connection again. Thought? Regards, --=20 Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center