From: | Alexey Borzov <borz_off(at)rdw(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Resolved! (was: Re[8]: WTF is going on with PG_VERSION?) |
Date: | 2000-09-21 09:40:23 |
Message-ID: | 6569.000921@rdw.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Well, thanks to everybody who helped!
It was indeed the problem with opening files - the limit was set
to 1024 with more than 100 possible backends...
Well, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to change the error message in
the future versions of Postgres, 'cause now it is somewhat...
misleading... ;->
Greetings, The Hermit Hacker!
At 21.09.2000, 13:34, you wrote:
>> Well, last question then: I wasn't too specific, but the problem
>> with this crash is that not ONE SINGLE backend fails, but ALL OF
>> THEM AT ONCE: someone comes running to me and shouts 'our site is
>> down!', when I login and type 'ps eax | grep postgres' there
>> are no postgres processes in memory... Which is strange, as I
>> connect to Postgres from PHP, and use `persistent` connections, so
>> the backends which are in memory should have already read their
>> PG_VERSIONs...
>> Is it as it should be with ENFILE failure?
THH> that is as it was when we were hitting it ... we are actually running a db
THH> on 4 seperate ports, and we would see one db beign down and the rest
THH> running happily along ... as soon as one db goes for that last slot and
THH> can't find it, that one would completely shut down, as its the 'parent
THH> process' that appears to be the one going for it ...
--
Yours, Alexey V. Borzov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Danny | 2000-09-21 11:42:16 | data type (datetime) |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-09-21 07:54:15 | Re: Re[6]: WTF is going on with PG_VERSION? |