Re: Accommodate startup process in a separate ProcState array slot instead of in MaxBackends slots.
От | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Accommodate startup process in a separate ProcState array slot instead of in MaxBackends slots. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACV3JiU4-54Jt-v-YJf9a-b7ayeaXeW=vBcvXa5uZnnF=w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Accommodate startup process in a separate ProcState array slot instead of in MaxBackends slots. (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Accommodate startup process in a separate ProcState array slot instead of in MaxBackends slots.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:37 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > 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. Thanks for reviewing. I've made a CF entry for this, just to ensure the tests on different CF bot server passes(and yes no failures) - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/35/3355/ Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: