On 2019-Nov-04, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:42 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > True, it's not a situation you especially want to be in. However, > > > I've lost count of the number of times that I've heard someone talk > > > about how their system was overstressed to the point that everything > > > else was failing, but Postgres kept chugging along. That's a good > > > reputation to have and we shouldn't just walk away from it. > > > > I agree with this point in principle. Everything else (queries, > > checkpointing) can fail, but it's critical that postmaster continues to > > run [...] > > Sure, I'm not arguing that the postmaster should blow up and die.
I must have misinterpreted you, then. But then I also misinterpreted Tom, because I thought it was this stability problem that was "utter bunkum". > I was, however, arguing that if the postmaster fails to launch workers > for a parallel query due to process table exhaustion, it's OK for > *that query* to error out. That position makes sense to me. It would be nice [..ponies..] for the query to run regardless, but if it doesn't, it's not such a big deal; the query could have equally failed to run in a single process anyway. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
