Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-v6.5beta2.tar.gz ...
От | Tatsuo Ishii |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-v6.5beta2.tar.gz ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199906080242.LAA03216@srapc451.sra.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-v6.5beta2.tar.gz ... (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-v6.5beta2.tar.gz ...
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>That is a good point, but actually I think it should not be a problem. >vacuum.c just does open() and immediately close() on pg_vlock; it >doesn't hold the file descriptor open. > >When I fixed psort.c a few weeks ago, I looked through all the other >direct calls of open() and fopen() in the backend. There are still half >a dozen or so, but none of them open more than one file or will hold the >file descriptor for longer than the execution of the function they're >in. So I felt it was OK to leave them alone. > >The reason it's OK is that fd.c doesn't use up all the available >file descriptors --- it tries to leave ten or so unused. That's >necessary to ensure that library functions like dlopen() will work, >because they don't know anything about using fd.c's routines. > >So, the occasional short-term file opening in vacuum.c and similar >places should not matter. If those do fail for lack of FDs, then the >*real* problem is that fd.c is not estimating correctly how many file >descriptors it can safely use; that's what we need to fix. > >But what I want to know right now is whether this behavior has been >seen with code from the last week or two. Maybe the report is just >a side-effect of the FD leaks that used to exist in several places... If I correctly remember, the report was regarding 6.4.2. I will check if it happens with current, and report back soon. --- Tatsuo Ishii
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: