Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-08-07 16:52:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, I don't think so. If you're depending on the NUM_RESERVED_FDS
>> headroom for anything meaningful, *you're doing it wrong*. You should be
>> getting an FD via fd.c, so that there is an opportunity to free up an FD
>> (by closing a VFD) if you're up against system limits. Relying on
>> NUM_RESERVED_FDS headroom can only protect against EMFILE not ENFILE.
> How would this work for libpq based stuff like postgres fdw? Or some
> random PL doing something with files? There's very little headroom here.
Probably the best we can hope for there is to have fd.c provide a function
"close an FD please", which postgres_fdw could call if libpq fails because
of ENFILE/EMFILE, and then retry. (Though I'm unsure how reliably
postgres_fdw can detect that failure reason right now --- I don't know
that we preserve errno on the way out of PQconnect.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
