Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 01/29/2017 04:07 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> I'm inclined to keep this as is - I don't think we should change the
> names at least in the stable releases. I'm not sure how far back it
> should be patched. The real effect is going to be felt from 9.6, I
> think, but arguably for consistency we should change it back to 9.3 or
> 9.4. Thoughts?
> 
> Other things being equal I intend to commit this later today.

+1

Maybe it is better not to backpatch farther than 9.6 - I think it is
good to be conservative about backpatching, and, as you say, the effect
won't be noticable much before 9.6.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe