Re: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!?

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> So, that's really the core of your problem. We don't promise that
>> you can run several thousand backends at once. Usually it's recommended
>> that you stick a connection pooler in front of a server with (at most)
>> a few hundred backends.

> Sure, but that doesn't mean things should completely fall over when we
> do get up to larger numbers of backends, which is definitely pretty
> common in larger systems.

As I understood the report, it was not "things completely fall over",
it was "performance gets bad". But let's get real. Unless the OP
has a machine with thousands of CPUs, trying to run this way is
counterproductive.

Perhaps in a decade or two such machines will be common enough that
it'll make sense to try to tune Postgres to run well on them. Right
now I feel no hesitation about saying "if it hurts, don't do that".

regards, tom lane