| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Accommodate startup process in a separate ProcState array slot instead of in MaxBackends slots. |
| Date: | 2021-10-12 00:07:52 |
| Message-ID: | f41d38c9-a81f-bd33-0417-b4c9a8c453f7@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/10/12 4:07, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While working on [1], it is found that currently the ProcState array
> doesn't have entries for auxiliary processes, it does have entries for
> MaxBackends. But the startup process is eating up one slot from
> MaxBackends. We need to increase the size of the ProcState array by 1
> at least for the startup process. The startup process uses ProcState
> slot via InitRecoveryTransactionEnvironment->SharedInvalBackendInit.
> The procState array size is initialized to MaxBackends in
> SInvalShmemSize.
>
> The consequence of not fixing this issue is that the database may hit
> the error "sorry, too many clients already" soon in
> SharedInvalBackendInit.
>
> Attaching a patch to fix this issue. Thoughts?
Thanks for making the patch! LGTM.
Barring any objection, I will commit it.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-10-12 00:25:46 | Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-11 23:49:49 | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |