From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Missed check for too-many-children in bgworker spawning |
Date: | 2019-11-04 19:09:45 |
Message-ID: | 20191104190945.GF6962@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2019-10-09 12:29:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I would say rather that if fork() is failing on your system, you have
> > a not very stable system.
>
> I don't think that's really true, fwiw. It's often a good idea to turn
> on strict memory overcommit accounting, and with that set, it's actually
> fairly common to see fork() fail with ENOMEM, even if there's
> practically a reasonable amount of resources. Especially with larger
> shared buffers and without huge pages, the amount of memory needed for a
> postmaster child in the worst case is not insubstantial.
I've not followed this thread very closely, but I agree with Andres here
wrt fork() failing with ENOMEM in the field and not because the system
isn't stable.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-04 19:11:18 | Re: Excessive disk usage in WindowAgg |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-04 19:08:18 | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |