From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Edmundo Robles L(dot)" <erobles(at)sensacd(dot)com(dot)mx> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question about SCO openserver and postgres... |
Date: | 2010-07-23 16:29:01 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinLX4tgX7oScR23Ec6zQ4UQCHENWDe7OwLW_nsX@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Edmundo Robles L.
<erobles(at)sensacd(dot)com(dot)mx> wrote:
>
> On 07/22/2010 05:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Edmundo Robles L.
>> <erobles(at)sensacd(dot)com(dot)mx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>> I have a problem with the max postgres connections on SCO
>>> Openserver 5.0.7, so ...my boss decided to buy the SCO Openserver 6.0
>>> but this version comes in 2 editions: Starter and Enterprise.
>>>
>>> If SCO 5.0.7 only allows 95 ( -3 used by superuser) connections to
>>> postgres...
>>>
>>> Do you know how many connections to postgres can i have with
>>> OpenServer in Starter Edition or Enterprise edition?
>>>
>> Are you sure this isn't just a limit in max_connections in postgresql.conf?
>>
>>
> Yes, i sure. i have the same problem with postgres 7.2 (100 connections)
> and 8.3.11 (only 95 :-( )
>
> I change the max_connections on postgres , on SCO 5.0.7 set the
> SHMMAX,SHM* to the maximun value and relink the SCO kernel
> but always , i have only 95 client connected to postgres no more.....
>
> That is because we want buy SCO 6.0 but i don't know if we will have
> the same problem, our programs are developed on SCO so the migration to
> another operative system is not a choice... for now.
>
> By the way i send a mail to SCO but until now they don't answer to me.
I'd be working on a schedule to get off of SCO if it was up to me.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steeles | 2010-07-23 16:29:26 | Can WAL files be shipped to multiple servers? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-07-23 16:27:37 | Re: Bitmask trickiness |