Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27090.977613173@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems
reported earlier)
Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > 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. Even if ulimit exists and is able to control that parameter on a given platform (highly unportable assumptions), it's not really a workable answer. fd.c has to stop short of using up all of the actual nfile limit, or else stuff like the dynamic loader is likely to fail. > 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." (1) A dbadmin who hasn't read the run-time configuration doc page (that you did such a nice job with) is going to have lots of performance issues besides this one. (2) The last thing *I* want to hear is stories of a default Postgres installation causing system-wide instability. But if we don't insert an open-files limit that's tighter than the "customary operating system limit", that's exactly the situation we have, at least on several popular platforms. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: