Hi,
On 2020-01-08 17:31:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> (1) d20703805's test will clearly fall over if there are more than six
> FDs open in the postmaster when set_max_safe_fds is called, because it
> sets max_files_per_process = 26 while set_max_safe_fds requires at
> least 20 usable FDs to be available.
> (4) NetBSD 7.0's cron leaves three extra open FDs in processes that
> it spawns. I have not looked into why, but I have experimentally
> observed this. For example, lsof on a "sleep" launched from cron
> shows
>
> COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME
> sleep 7824 tgl cwd VDIR 0,0 512 795201 /home/tgl
> sleep 7824 tgl txt VREG 0,0 10431 1613152 /bin/sleep
> sleep 7824 tgl txt VREG 0,0 1616564 22726 /lib/libc.so.12.193.1
> sleep 7824 tgl txt VREG 0,0 55295 22747 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1.0
> sleep 7824 tgl txt VREG 0,0 187183 22762 /lib/libm.so.0.11
> sleep 7824 tgl txt VREG 0,0 92195 1499524 /libexec/ld.elf_so
> sleep 7824 tgl 0r PIPE 0xfffffe803131eb58 16384
> sleep 7824 tgl 1w PIPE 0xfffffe8007ec4a30 0 ->0xfffffe800cc0d2c0
> sleep 7824 tgl 2w PIPE 0xfffffe8007ec4a30 0 ->0xfffffe800cc0d2c0
> sleep 7824 tgl 7u unknown file system type: 0
> sleep 7824 tgl 8u unknown file system type: 0
> sleep 7824 tgl 9w PIPE 0xfffffe80036c4dc0 0
>
> while of course "sleep" launched by hand has only 0/1/2 open.
Is it worth having the test close superflous FDs? It'd not be hard to do
so via brute force (or even going through /proc/self/fd).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
