Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors
Date: 2017-08-07 21:24:20
Message-ID: CAH2-WzmnK6-eOy-J1NJingSsCZLqv_G2G+VgoUOX8HMoqw3LVA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Given how close max_files_per_process is to the default linux limit of
> 1024 fds, I wonder if we shouldn't increase NUM_RESERVED_FDS by quite a
> bit?

Personally, any time I've seen a problem with this it was because an
extension leaked FDs, which is always going to fail in the end. The
extension leaked FDs because it didn't fully buy into using Postgres
resource managers, perhaps only in a subtle way. I find it hard to
imagine an extension author explicitly relying on any particular
amount of slop for FDs.

Is this specifically about postgres_fdw, or is there some other
specific problem you have in mind, that this would help solve?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-08-07 21:30:13 Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-08-07 21:12:34 Re: max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors