From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors |
Date: | 2017-08-07 21:12:34 |
Message-ID: | 20170807211234.o3g6pzebj3khsgce@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-08-07 17:05:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2017-08-07 16:52:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, I don't think so. If you're depending on the NUM_RESERVED_FDS
> >> headroom for anything meaningful, *you're doing it wrong*. You should be
> >> getting an FD via fd.c, so that there is an opportunity to free up an FD
> >> (by closing a VFD) if you're up against system limits. Relying on
> >> NUM_RESERVED_FDS headroom can only protect against EMFILE not ENFILE.
>
> > How would this work for libpq based stuff like postgres fdw? Or some
> > random PL doing something with files? There's very little headroom here.
>
> Probably the best we can hope for there is to have fd.c provide a function
> "close an FD please", which postgres_fdw could call if libpq fails because
> of ENFILE/EMFILE, and then retry.
Unless that takes up a slot in fd.c while in use, that'll still leave us
open to failures to open files in some critical parts, unless I miss
something.
And then we'd have to teach similar things to PLs etc. I agree that
having some more slop isn't a proper solution, but only having ~30 fds
as slop on the most common systems seems mightily small.
> (Though I'm unsure how reliably postgres_fdw can detect that failure
> reason right now --- I don't know that we preserve errno on the way
> out of PQconnect.)
Yea, probably not really...
Regards,
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-08-07 21:24:20 | Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-07 21:05:06 | Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors |