"B. Nicholson" <b(dot)nicholson(at)niceng(dot)com> writes:
> Tom, what libc details will be broken by setting FD_SETSIZE to a larger
> number? I'm curious for my own knowledge base. I can see where it
> might cause 'data' sizes to grow which might break thinks. Anything else?
I'm not too sure, honestly. I can tell you that this exact point came up
recently on a Red Hat internal mailing list, and no less an authority
than Ulrich Drepper said "you can't do that, it'll break things". He
didn't say exactly what though. It's possible that on non-glibc-based
platforms, you could get away with it.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-odbc by date
|Next:||From: Giles Lean||Date: 2010-05-20 17:25:25|
|Subject: Re: FD_SETSIZE with large #s of files/ports in use |
|Previous:||From: B. Nicholson||Date: 2010-05-20 00:12:40|
|Subject: Re: FD_SETSIZE with large #s of files/ports in use|