Resolved! (was: Re[8]: WTF is going on with PG_VERSION?)

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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?