Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> We have already fixed this in CVS and the fix will be in 7.5:
I don't think that the previous changes address what the complainant
seems to really want, viz not even *try* to exceed RLIMIT_NOFILE.
However the patch certainly must be rejected since (a) it appears
unaware of the post-7.4 work in this area, (b) it has not been made
portable (eg, it will fail to compile on machines without getrlimit),
and (c) we do not like patches that add random manual configuration
symbols to the code ... especially undocumented ones.
If this issue seems important to you then please rework the patch to be
up-to-date and properly autoconfiscated, and resubmit.
regards, tom lane