On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:02 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > MAX_FORKNUM is way lower right now. And hardcoded. So this doesn't imply a new > restriction. As we iterate over 0..MAX_FORKNUM in a bunch of places (with > filesystem access each time), it's not feasible to make that number large.
Yeah. TBH, what I'd really like to do is kill the entire fork system with fire and replace it with something more scalable, which would maybe permit the sort of thing Hannu suggests here. With the current system, forget it. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
