> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> > All the OSes we know of fold it to 128, currently. We can jump it
> > to 10240 now, or later when there are 20GHz CPUs.
>
> > If you want to make it more complicated, it would be more useful to
> > be able to set the value lower for runtime enviro
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 06:36:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> > All the OSes we know of fold it to 128, currently. We can jump it
> > to 10240 now, or later when there are 20GHz CPUs.
>
> > If you want to make it more complicated, it would be more useful
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> All the OSes we know of fold it to 128, currently. We can jump it
> to 10240 now, or later when there are 20GHz CPUs.
> If you want to make it more complicated, it would be more useful to
> be able to set the value lower for runtime environments where
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could we test SOMAXCONN and set PG_SOMAXCONN to 1000 only if SOMAXCONN1
> > is less than 1000?
>
> Why bother?
>
> If you've got some plausible scenario where 1000 is too small, we could
> just as easily make it 1. I don't see the need for yet
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was thinking:
> #if SOMAXCONN >= 1000
> #define PG_SOMAXCONN SOMAXCONN
> #else
> #define PG_SOMAXCONN 1000
> #endif
Not in config.h, you don't. Unless you want (or
whichever header defines SOMAXCONN; how consistent is
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could we test SOMAXCONN and set PG_SOMAXCONN to 1000 only if SOMAXCONN1
> is less than 1000?
Why bother?
If you've got some plausible scenario where 1000 is too small, we could
just as easily make it 1. I don't see the need for yet another
configu
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 05:06:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > OK, I tried using 1024 (and later 128) instead of SOMAXCONN (defined to
> > > be 5 on Solaris) in src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c and ran a few regression
> > > tests on two different Spa
> Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, I tried using 1024 (and later 128) instead of SOMAXCONN (defined to
> > be 5 on Solaris) in src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c and ran a few regression
> > tests on two different Sparc boxes (Solaris 7 and 8). The regression
> > test still fails, but fo
Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I tried using 1024 (and later 128) instead of SOMAXCONN (defined to
> be 5 on Solaris) in src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c and ran a few regression
> tests on two different Sparc boxes (Solaris 7 and 8). The regression
> test still fails, but for a differ
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:03:16PM -0700, Nathan Myers allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:24:17PM +0200, Mathijs Brands wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 02:03:31PM -0700, Naomi Walker allegedly wrote:
> > > At 04:30 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >I have purchased the Sol
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 02:03:31PM -0700, Naomi Walker allegedly wrote:
> At 04:30 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >I have purchased the Solaris source code from Sun for $80. (I could
> >have downloaded it for free after faxing them an 11 page contract, but I
> >decided I wanted the CD's.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 04:30:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian allegedly wrote:
> I have purchased the Solaris source code from Sun for $80. (I could
> have downloaded it for free after faxing them an 11 page contract, but I
> decided I wanted the CD's.) See the slashdot story at:
>
> http://sla
12 matches
Mail list logo
