Hello,
Could you rebase the v11 patch?
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Without this patch, one is limited to '(FD_SETSIZE - 10)’ number of connections.
Example of something that fails without this patch but works with the patch:
Without the patch:
$ pgbench -j 3000 -c 1500
invalid number of clients: "1500"
With the patch:
$ pgbench -j 3000 -c 1500
starting vacuum
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Rady, Doug wrote:
> This patch enables building pgbench to use ppoll() instead of select()
>
> to allow for more than (FD_SETSIZE - 10) connections. As implemented,
>
> when using ppoll(), the only connection limitation is system resources.
So what's an example o
This patch enables building pgbench to use ppoll() instead of select()
to allow for more than (FD_SETSIZE - 10) connections. As implemented,
when using ppoll(), the only connection limitation is system resources.
One based on 'master' which can also apply to REL_10_STABLE.
/home/fabien/pgbe
On 9/25/17, 11:07, "Andres Freund" wrote:
On 2017-09-25 18:01:40 +, Rady, Doug wrote:
> This patch enables building pgbench to use ppoll() instead of select()
> to allow for more than (FD_SETSIZE - 10) connections. As implemented,
> when using ppoll(), the only connection lim
Hello Again,
Two patches attached.
One based on REL9_6_STABLE.
I'd be surprise that there would be a backport unless there is a bug, so
this one might not be useful.
One based on 'master' which can also apply to REL_10_STABLE.
Could you add your patches to the next CF?
--
Fabien.
--
On 2017-09-25 18:01:40 +, Rady, Doug wrote:
> This patch enables building pgbench to use ppoll() instead of select()
> to allow for more than (FD_SETSIZE - 10) connections. As implemented,
> when using ppoll(), the only connection limitation is system resources.
Hm, is there any need of using
