Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-v6.5beta2.tar.gz ...

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-v6.5beta2.tar.gz ...
Date: 1999-06-08 10:12:26
Message-ID: 199906081012.TAA05833@srapc451.sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>That is a good point, but actually I think it should not be a problem.
>>vacuum.c just does open() and immediately close() on pg_vlock; it
>>doesn't hold the file descriptor open.
>>
>>When I fixed psort.c a few weeks ago, I looked through all the other
>>direct calls of open() and fopen() in the backend. There are still half
>>a dozen or so, but none of them open more than one file or will hold the
>>file descriptor for longer than the execution of the function they're
>>in. So I felt it was OK to leave them alone.
>>
>>The reason it's OK is that fd.c doesn't use up all the available
>>file descriptors --- it tries to leave ten or so unused. That's
>>necessary to ensure that library functions like dlopen() will work,
>>because they don't know anything about using fd.c's routines.
>>
>>So, the occasional short-term file opening in vacuum.c and similar
>>places should not matter. If those do fail for lack of FDs, then the
>>*real* problem is that fd.c is not estimating correctly how many file
>>descriptors it can safely use; that's what we need to fix.
>>
>>But what I want to know right now is whether this behavior has been
>>seen with code from the last week or two. Maybe the report is just
>>a side-effect of the FD leaks that used to exist in several places...
>
>If I correctly remember, the report was regarding 6.4.2. I will check
>if it happens with current, and report back soon.

Done. With 32/64 users and 100 transactions each, I see no problem so
far.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Broytmann 1999-06-08 10:40:39 Re: [HACKERS] PL/Lang (was: Priorities for 6.6)
Previous Message Jan Wieck 1999-06-08 09:46:47 Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6