"Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" writes:
> On Saturday, December 28, 2024 1:31 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Attached is an alternative proposal that groups the autovac launcher and
>> slotsync worker into a new category of "special workers" (better name
>> welcome). I chose to put them into the existing autovacF
On Saturday, December 28, 2024 1:31 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" writes:
> > On Thursday, December 26, 2024 3:50 AM Tom Lane
> >> I wonder if the AV launcher and slotsync worker could be reclassified
> >> as "auxiliary processes" instead of being their own weird animal.
>
> >
Also, here's a patch for the rest of what I was talking about.
We'll need to back-patch this given that the CVE-2024-10978 changes
caused these sorts of problems in all branches, but I've not yet
attempted to back-patch. It looks like it might be a bit painful
thanks to past code churn in these a
"Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" writes:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2024 3:50 AM Tom Lane
>> I wonder if the AV launcher and slotsync worker could be reclassified as
>> "auxiliary
>> processes" instead of being their own weird animal.
> It appears that the current aux processes do not run transactions a
On Thursday, December 26, 2024 3:50 AM Tom Lane
Hi,
> In connection with the discussion at [1], I started to look at exactly which
> server
> processes ought to be subject to connection limits (datconnlimit,
> ACL_CONNECT, and related checks). The current situation seems to be an
> inconsisten
