| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shmget error text reports funny max_connections numbers |
| Date: | 2010-10-15 00:36:48 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikT4TFCrW+OSxxB2vdYGYt_0b=XNSL+q6z5vZ4F@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Since MaxBackends is actually max_connections + autovacuum_max_workers +
> 1, when you get an error message from shmget() it will tell you
>
> "reduce ... its max_connections parameter (currently 104)"
>
> when you actually set
>
> max_connections = 100
>
> This looks a bit silly.
>
> Should we just make the error messages report MaxBackends -
> autovacuum_max_workers - 1, or is it worthwhile calling out
> autovacuum_max_workers separately?
I suppose there are other reasons we could run out of shared memory,
too. max_locks_per_transaction, for example. It might be good to
revise the wording of the message so as to suggest that these are only
some of the possible causes.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-15 00:44:55 | Re: FreeBSD 8.0 i386, plpythonu, threaded Python not supported on this platform |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2010-10-15 00:35:24 | Re: How to reliably detect if it's a promoting standby |