Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-08-07 17:30:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Meh. The lack of field complaints about this doesn't indicate to me that
>> we have a huge problem, and in any case, just increasing NUM_RESERVED_FDS
>> would do nothing for the system-wide limits.
> Howso? Via count_usable_fds() we test for max_files_per_process /
> RLIMIT_NOFILE fds, and *then* subtract NUM_RESERVED_FDS.
The limit I'm worried about is the kernel's overall FD table size limit
(ENFILE failures), not the per-process limit. PG has a well-known
propensity for eating the entire kernel table under heavy load. We
wouldn't ever have bothered with those retry loops otherwise.
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
