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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmnK6-eOy-J1NJingSsCZLqv_G2G+VgoUOX8HMoqw3LVA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] max_files_per_processes vs others uses of file descriptors  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

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