Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I propose we add a new configuration parameter, MAX_FILES_PER_PROCESS,
>> with a default value of about 100. A new backend would set its
>> max-files setting to the smaller of this parameter or
>> sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX).
> Seems nice idea. We have been
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001223 14:16] wrote:
> Department of Things that Fell Through the Cracks:
>
> Back in August we had concluded that it is a bad idea to trust
> "sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX)" as an indicator of how many files each backend
> can safely open. FreeBSD was reported to return
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe a setting that controls the total number of files that postmaster
> plus backends can allocate among them would be useful.
That'd be nice if we could do it, but I don't see any inexpensive way
to get one backend to release an open FD when anoth
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I'm not sure why this didn't get dealt with, but I think it's a "must
>> fix" kind of problem for 7.1. The dbadmin has *got* to be able to
>> limit Postgres' appetite for open file descriptors.
> Use ulimit.
Even if ulimit exist
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Department of Things that Fell Through the Cracks:
>
> Back in August we had concluded that it is a bad idea to trust
> "sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX)" as an indicator of how many files each backend
> can safely open. FreeBSD was reported to return 4136, and I have
> since noticed t
Department of Things that Fell Through the Cracks:
Back in August we had concluded that it is a bad idea to trust
"sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX)" as an indicator of how many files each backend
can safely open. FreeBSD was reported to return 4136, and I have
since noticed that LinuxPPC returns 1024. Bot
