From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bump soft open file limit (RLIMIT_NOFILE) to hard limit on startup |
Date: | 2025-02-11 21:18:37 |
Message-ID: | 3216369.1739308717@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> My suggestion would be to redefine max_files_per_process as the number of
> files we try to be able to open in backends. I.e. set_max_safe_fds() would
> first count the number of already open fds (since those will largely be
> inherited by child processes) and then check if we can open up to
> max_files_per_process files in addition. Adjusting the RLIMIT_NOFILE if
> necessary.
Seems plausible. IIRC we also want 10 or so FDs available as "slop"
for code that doesn't go through fd.c.
> And when using something like io_uring for AIO, it'd allow to
> max_files_per_process in addition to the files requires for the io_uring
> instances.
Not following? Surely we'd not be configuring that so early in
postmaster start?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-02-11 21:18:45 | Re: Expanding HOT updates for expression and partial indexes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-02-11 21:14:21 | Re: Bump soft open file limit (RLIMIT_NOFILE) to hard limit on startup |