Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.05.9902251107130.33680-100000@thelab.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@nhh.no> writes: > > Looking more closely into it, the postmaster is trying to allocate 64 > > semaphores in four groups of 16, so I built a new kernel with a higher > > limit, and it's now OK. > > This is as it should be, I hope? It's not a case of something being > > misconfigured now, using semaphores instead of some other facility? > > Yes, this is an intentional change --- I guess you haven't been reading > the hackers list very closely. The postmaster is now set up to grab > all the semaphores Postgres could need (for the specified number of > backend processes) immediately at postmaster startup. Failing then > for lack of semaphores seems a better idea than failing under load > when you try to start the N+1'st client, which is what used to happen. > > There has been some discussion of reducing the default number-of- > backends limit to 32 so that a stock installation is less likely > to run out of semaphores. Is there any way (sysctl?) of determining the max # of semaphores configured into a system? I just looked at a sys/sysconfig.h under Solaris, and it appears they have an "undocumented function" that does this...but I can't seem to find anything right off... For that matter, being able to do a configure check to see if semaphores are even compiled into the system or not (ala FreeBSD) might be nice too... Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: