From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Nathan Mascitelli <nathanmascitelli(at)geotab(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14101: Postgres Service Crashes With Memory Error And Does Not Recover |
Date: | 2016-04-20 14:31:28 |
Message-ID: | 571792C0.3060503@hogranch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 4/20/2016 7:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Mascitelli<nathanmascitelli(at)geotab(dot)com> writes:
>> >The machine has the postgres server and our application server on it. There
>> >are around 300 databases and typically ~1000 connections. At the time of
>> >the crash there was free RAM and disk space on the server.
> You're a braver man than I, to trust Windows with a 1000-connection
> server. But anyway, if the backend count is that high it's far from
> surprising that you hit some Windows resource limit or other. It's
> widely considered best practice to use a connection pooler to limit
> the number of backends to something a lot less than that, regardless
> of platform.
with 300 databases in use, a pooler would not be much help. 1000
connections is an average of 3 connections per database.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Mascitelli | 2016-04-20 15:17:23 | Re: BUG #14101: Postgres Service Crashes With Memory Error And Does Not Recover |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-20 14:09:20 | Re: BUG #14101: Postgres Service Crashes With Memory Error And Does Not Recover |