Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot
Date
Msg-id 28116.919952921@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot  (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@nhh.no>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@nhh.no> writes:
> Looking more closely into it, the postmaster is trying to allocate 64
> semaphores in four groups of 16, so I built a new kernel with a higher
> limit, and it's now OK.
> This is as it should be, I hope?  It's not a case of something being
> misconfigured now, using semaphores instead of some other facility?

Yes, this is an intentional change --- I guess you haven't been reading
the hackers list very closely.  The postmaster is now set up to grab
all the semaphores Postgres could need (for the specified number of
backend processes) immediately at postmaster startup.  Failing then
for lack of semaphores seems a better idea than failing under load
when you try to start the N+1'st client, which is what used to happen.

There has been some discussion of reducing the default number-of-
backends limit to 32 so that a stock installation is less likely
to run out of semaphores.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster failure with 2-23 snapshot
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM ANALYZE problem on linux