Re: shmget error text reports funny max_connections numbers

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shmget error text reports funny max_connections numbers
Date: 2010-10-15 00:36:48
Message-ID: AANLkTikT4TFCrW+OSxxB2vdYGYt_0b=XNSL+q6z5vZ4F@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Since MaxBackends is actually max_connections + autovacuum_max_workers +
> 1, when you get an error message from shmget() it will tell you
>
> "reduce ... its max_connections parameter (currently 104)"
>
> when you actually set
>
> max_connections = 100
>
> This looks a bit silly.
>
> Should we just make the error messages report MaxBackends -
> autovacuum_max_workers - 1, or is it worthwhile calling out
> autovacuum_max_workers separately?

I suppose there are other reasons we could run out of shared memory,
too. max_locks_per_transaction, for example. It might be good to
revise the wording of the message so as to suggest that these are only
some of the possible causes.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-10-15 00:44:55 Re: FreeBSD 8.0 i386, plpythonu, threaded Python not supported on this platform
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2010-10-15 00:35:24 Re: How to reliably detect if it's a promoting standby