From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Rainer Bauer <usenet(at)munnin(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Laurent Duperval" <lduperval(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit |
Date: | 2007-10-20 15:19:20 |
Message-ID: | 9297.1192893560@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> How about we just emit a warning..
>>
>> WARNING: Connections above 250 on Windows platforms may have
>> unpredictable results.
> That's probably a better idea. I'll go look at that unless people feel we should just stick it in docd/faq?
Unless we've got some credible basis for citing a particular number,
I don't think this will help much.
Rainer Bauer <usenet(at)munnin(dot)com> writes:
> My guess is that Windows is running out of handles. Each backend uses about
> 150 handles. 100 Backends means 15000 handles. Depending how many other
> programs are currently running the no. of startable backends will vary
> depending on the total handle limit Windows imposes.
I find this theory very interesting; for one thing it explains the
reported variability of results, since the non-Postgres demand for
handles could be anything. Is there any way we could check it?
If it's accurate, what we ought to be whining about is some
combination of max_connections and max_files_per_process, rather
than only considering the former.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-10-20 15:33:03 | Re: 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-10-20 12:33:17 | Re: uniquely indexing Celko's nested set model |