Re: Missed check for too-many-children in bgworker spawning

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)