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

On 1/11/17 5:51 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> Now, since background workers
> don't consume anything from max_connections, then I don't really feel
> that a background worker should count towards "CONNECTION LIMIT". I'd
> assume any CONNECTION LIMITs that are set for a user would be
> calculated based on what max_connections is set to. If we want to
> limit background workers in the same manner, then perhaps we'd want to
> invent something like "WORKER LIMIT N" in CREATE USER.

This explanation makes sense, but it kind of upset my background
sessions patch, which would previously have been limited by per-user
connection settings.

So I would like to have a background worker limit per user, as you
allude to.  Attached is a patch that implements a GUC setting
max_worker_processes_per_user.

Besides the uses for background sessions, but it can also be useful for
parallel workers, logical replication apply workers, or things like
third-party partitioning extensions.

Thoughts?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers