Fwd: Patch for reserved connections for replication users - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Sorry missed to keep -hackers in previous mail.

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Patch for reserved connections for replication users
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, gibheer@zero-knowledge.org
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, marko@joh.to


Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund
<andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hmm.  It seems like this match is making MaxConnections no longer mean
>>> the maximum number of connections, but rather the maximum number of
>>> non-replication connections.  I don't think I support that
>>> definitional change, and I'm kinda surprised if this is sufficient to
>>> implement it anyway (e.g. see InitProcGlobal()).
>
>> I don't think the implementation is correct, but why don't you like the
>> definitional change? The set of things you can do from replication
>> connections are completely different from a normal connection. So using
>> separate "pools" for them seems to make sense.
>> That they end up allocating similar internal data seems to be an
>> implementation detail to me.

> Because replication connections are still "connections".  If I tell
> the system I want to allow 100 connections to the server, it should
> allow 100 connections, not 110 or 95 or any other number.

I think that to reserve connections for replication, mechanism similar
to superuser_reserved_connections be used rather than auto vacuum
workers or background workers.
This won't change the definition of MaxConnections. Another thing is
that rather than introducing new parameter for replication reserved
connections, it is better to use max_wal_senders as it can serve the
purpose.

Review for replication_reserved_connections-v2.patch, considering we
are going to use mechanism similar to superuser_reserved_connections
and won't allow definition of MaxConnections to change.

1. /* the extra unit accounts for the autovacuum launcher */ MaxBackends = MaxConnections + autovacuum_max_workers + 1
+
- + max_worker_processes;
+ + max_worker_processes + max_wal_senders;

Above changes are not required.

2.
+ if ((!am_superuser && !am_walsender) && ReservedBackends > 0 && !HaveNFreeProcs(ReservedBackends))

Change the check as you have in patch-1 for ReserveReplicationConnections

if (!am_superuser &&
(max_wal_senders > 0 || ReservedBackends > 0) &&
!HaveNFreeProcs(max_wal_senders + ReservedBackends))
ereport(FATAL,
(errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_CONNECTIONS),
errmsg("remaining connection slots are reserved for replication and
superuser connections")));

3. In guc.c, change description of max_wal_senders similar to
superuser_reserved_connections at below place:  {"max_wal_senders", PGC_POSTMASTER, REPLICATION_SENDING,
gettext_noop("Sets the maximum number of simultaneously running WAL
sender processes."),

4. With this approach, there is no need to change InitProcGlobal(), as
it is used to keep track bgworkerFreeProcs and autovacFreeProcs, for
others it use freeProcs.

5. Below description in config.sgml needs to be changed for
superuser_reserved_connections to include the effect of max_wal_enders
in reserved connections.
Whenever the number of active concurrent connections is at least
max_connections minus superuser_reserved_connections, new connections
will be accepted only for superusers, and no new replication
connections will be accepted.

6. Also similar description should be added to max_wal_senders
configuration parameter.

7. Below comment needs to be updated, as it assumes only superuser
reserved connections as part of MaxConnections limit.  /** ReservedBackends is the number of backends reserved for
superuseruse.* This number is taken out of the pool size given by MaxBackends so* number of backend slots available to
non-superusersis* (MaxBackends - ReservedBackends).  Note what this really means is* "if there are <= ReservedBackends
connectionsavailable, only superusers* can make new connections" --- pre-existing superuser connections don't* count
againstthe limit.*/
 
int ReservedBackends;

8. Also we can add comment on top of definition for max_wal_senders
similar to ReservedBackends.


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com