From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 陈宗志 <baotiao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: AIO v2.0 |
Date: | 2024-12-20 00:54:10 |
Message-ID: | 5zmklvg6jagkrl3tu73wdtkrhzzcaibuzmk4kbbjeegvp6j4rz@k3uutbif4qnr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2024-12-19 17:34:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > My current thoughts around this are that we should generally, independent of
> > io_uring, increase the FD limit ourselves.
>
> I'm seriously down on that, because it amounts to an assumption that
> we own the machine and can appropriate all its resources. If ENFILE
> weren't a thing, it'd be all right, but that is a thing. We have no
> business trying to consume resources the DBA didn't tell us we could.
Arguably the configuration *did* tell us, by having a higher hard limit...
I'm not saying that we should increase the limit without a bound or without a
configuration option, btw.
As I had mentioned, the problem with relying on increasing the soft limit that
is that it's not generally sensible to do so, because it causes a bunch of
binaries to do be weirdly slow.
Another reason to not increase the soft rlimit is that doing so can break
programs relying on select().
But opting into a higher rlimit, while obviously adhering to the hard limit
and perhaps some other config knob, seems fine?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-12-20 00:56:28 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-12-20 00:13:33 | Re: Back-patch of: avoid multiple hard links to same WAL file after a crash |