Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors
Date: 2017-08-07 22:15:11
Message-ID: 5190.1502144111@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-08-07 17:30:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Meh. The lack of field complaints about this doesn't indicate to me that
>> we have a huge problem, and in any case, just increasing NUM_RESERVED_FDS
>> would do nothing for the system-wide limits.

> Howso? Via count_usable_fds() we test for max_files_per_process /
> RLIMIT_NOFILE fds, and *then* subtract NUM_RESERVED_FDS.

The limit I'm worried about is the kernel's overall FD table size limit
(ENFILE failures), not the per-process limit. PG has a well-known
propensity for eating the entire kernel table under heavy load. We
wouldn't ever have bothered with those retry loops otherwise.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-08-07 22:21:18 Re: ICU collation variant keywords and pg_collation entries (Was: [BUGS] Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-08-07 22:07:18 Re: Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values