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
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 |