Re: Cygwin - make check broken

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Rocco Altier <RoccoA(at)Routescape(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Cygwin - make check broken
Date: 2005-08-07 16:02:24
Message-ID: 2159.1123430544@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> ... The second part should not be
> applied - I simply include it to illustrate the hack (taken from a
> recent clue on the Cygwin mailing list) that I found necessary to get
> around brokenness on the latest release of Cygwin. The good news is
> that they do seem to be trying to find out what broke and fix it.

You mean this?

> *** src/backend/storage/file/fd.c 4 Jul 2005 04:51:48 -0000 1.118
> --- src/backend/storage/file/fd.c 7 Aug 2005 13:22:00 -0000
> ***************
> *** 327,332 ****
> --- 327,334 ----
> elog(WARNING, "dup(0) failed after %d successes: %m", used);
> break;
> }
> + if (used >= 250)
> + break;
>
> if (used >= size)
> {

Looking at that code, I wonder why we don't make the loop stop at
max_files_per_process opened files --- the useful result will be
bounded by that anyhow. Actively running the system out of FDs,
even momentarily, doesn't seem like a friendly thing to do.

This wouldn't directly solve your problem unless you reduced the
default value of max_files_per_process, but at least that would
be something reasonable to do instead of hacking the code.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-08-07 16:08:28 Re: Cygwin - make check broken
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-08-07 15:01:27 Re: Cygwin - make check broken