> 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
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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Terry Mackintosh||Date: 1999-02-25 17:39:10|
|Subject: Linux: semaphores: How?|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-02-25 17:26:52|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current tree is busted|