From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
Cc: | tih(at)nhh(dot)no, bpm(at)ec-group(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot |
Date: | 1999-02-25 17:36:51 |
Message-ID: | 199902251736.MAA07505@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih(at)nhh(dot)no> writes:
> > Looking more closely into it, the postmaster is trying to allocate 64
> > semaphores in four groups of 16, so I built a new kernel with a higher
> > limit, and it's now OK.
> > This is as it should be, I hope? It's not a case of something being
> > misconfigured now, using semaphores instead of some other facility?
>
> Yes, this is an intentional change --- I guess you haven't been reading
> the hackers list very closely. The postmaster is now set up to grab
> all the semaphores Postgres could need (for the specified number of
> backend processes) immediately at postmaster startup. Failing then
> for lack of semaphores seems a better idea than failing under load
> when you try to start the N+1'st client, which is what used to happen.
>
> There has been some discussion of reducing the default number-of-
> backends limit to 32 so that a stock installation is less likely
> to run out of semaphores.
Tom, better lower that limit soon. People are having trouble with the
snapshots.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Terry Mackintosh | 1999-02-25 17:39:10 | Linux: semaphores: How? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-02-25 17:26:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Current tree is busted |