"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On 8/10/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So the short answer is "get a real operating system"?
> changing a registry setting is not terrible in and of itself, akin to
> manually manipluating procfs, but the behavior is in a failure
> condition is. other than that, no comment.
Right. Nothing wrong with having an upper limit on how many processes
you can run, but reaching the limit should result in "fork failed"
(or local equivalent), not crashes.
Actually ... have any of the win32 hackers tested our win32 code path
that's equivalent to Unix fork failure? Maybe this is just a
garden-variety bug in our own code.
regards, tom lane
