Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-08-07 17:30:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Meh. The lack of field complaints about this doesn't indicate to me that >> we have a huge problem, and in any case, just increasing NUM_RESERVED_FDS >> would do nothing for the system-wide limits.
> Howso? Via count_usable_fds() we test for max_files_per_process / > RLIMIT_NOFILE fds, and *then* subtract NUM_RESERVED_FDS. The limit I'm worried about is the kernel's overall FD table size limit (ENFILE failures), not the per-process limit. PG has a well-known propensity for eating the entire kernel table under heavy load. We wouldn't ever have bothered with those retry loops otherwise. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers