| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16 |
| Date: | 2014-04-27 00:28:11 |
| Message-ID: | 535C4F1B.5060502@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/26/14, 1:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think we need to decide this without benchmarks proving the
> benefits. I basically want to know whether somebody has an actual
> usecase - even if I really, really, can't think of one - of setting
> max_connections even remotely that high. If there's something
> fundamental out there that'd make changing the limit impossible, doing
> benchmarks wouldn't be worthwile.
Stupid question... how many OSes would actually support 65k active processes, let alone 2^24?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-04-27 01:15:22 | Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-04-26 21:16:46 | Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16 |