Re: [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors
Date
Msg-id 22579.1502139906@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of filedescriptors  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of filedescriptors  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-08-07 16:52:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, I don't think so.  If you're depending on the NUM_RESERVED_FDS
>> headroom for anything meaningful, *you're doing it wrong*.  You should be
>> getting an FD via fd.c, so that there is an opportunity to free up an FD
>> (by closing a VFD) if you're up against system limits.  Relying on
>> NUM_RESERVED_FDS headroom can only protect against EMFILE not ENFILE.

> How would this work for libpq based stuff like postgres fdw? Or some
> random PL doing something with files? There's very little headroom here.

Probably the best we can hope for there is to have fd.c provide a function
"close an FD please", which postgres_fdw could call if libpq fails because
of ENFILE/EMFILE, and then retry.  (Though I'm unsure how reliably
postgres_fdw can detect that failure reason right now --- I don't know
that we preserve errno on the way out of PQconnect.)
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of filedescriptors
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of filedescriptors