Re: sidewinder has one failure

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mikael Kjellström <mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)mksoft(dot)nu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sidewinder has one failure
Date: 2020-01-03 15:05:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 6:34 PM Mikael Kjellström
> <mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)mksoft(dot)nu> wrote:
>> Why is this machine different from everybody else when it comes to this
>> limit?

> The problem we are seeing on this machine is that I think we have
> seven files opened before we reach function set_max_safe_fds during
> startup. Now, it is not clear to me why it is opening extra file(s)
> during start-up as compare to other machines.

Maybe it uses one of the semaphore implementations that consume a
file descriptor per semaphore?

I think that d20703805 was insanely optimistic to think that a
tiny value of max_files_per_process would work the same everywhere.
I'd actually recommend just dropping that test, as I do not think
it's possible to make it portable and reliable. Even if it could
be fixed, I doubt it would ever find any actual bug to justify
the sweat it would take to maintain it.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais 2020-01-03 15:11:38 Re: Fetching timeline during recovery
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2020-01-03 15:04:04 Re: Allow an alias to be attached directly to a JOIN ... USING