From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian '" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "''''Jan Wieck ' ' ' '" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "'''''''pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org' ' ' ' ' ' '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Date: | 2004-01-09 06:15:31 |
Message-ID: | 21143.1073628931@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the simplest way to make this work is to use an array that's
>> 2*MaxBackend items long (corresponding to the max number of children the
>> postmaster will fork).
> Actually, now that I think about it, is even that big enough. There is a
> reason BackendList is a list. In pathological situations, the postmaster
> could be made to fork a much larger number than 2*MaxBackend simultaneous
> children, although only this many will be allowed to become backends.
> (I guess we could check the port->canAcceptConnections value, and not add
> the backend to the array when == CAC_TOOMANY).
Probably we could rearrange the logic to test for too-many-children
before we even do the fork. It'd be a little uglier that way, but
not out of the question.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-09 06:21:36 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-09 06:14:01 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |