| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |
| Date: | 2000-12-23 23:06:29 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0012240000020.799-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> I'm not sure why this didn't get dealt with, but I think it's a "must
> fix" kind of problem for 7.1. The dbadmin has *got* to be able to
> limit Postgres' appetite for open file descriptors.
Use ulimit.
> I propose we add a new configuration parameter, MAX_FILES_PER_PROCESS,
> with a default value of about 100. A new backend would set its
> max-files setting to the smaller of this parameter or
> sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX).
I think this is an unreasonable interference with the customary operating
system interfaces (e.g., ulimit). The last thing I want to hear is
"Postgres is slow and it only opens 100 files per process even though I
<did something> to allow 32 million."
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-23 23:12:53 | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2000-12-23 22:38:24 | Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |