Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements
Дата
Msg-id 3701.1284781395@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Wow, 100 processes??! Really?  I guess I don't actually know how large
> modern proctables are, but on my MacOS X machine, for example, there
> are only 75 processes showing up right now in "ps auxww".  My Fedora
> 12 machine has 97.  That's including a PostgreSQL instance in the
> first case and an Apache instance in the second case.  So 100 workers
> seems like a ton to me.

The part of that that would worry me is open files.  PG backends don't
have any compunction about holding open hundreds of files.  Apiece.
You can dial that down but it'll cost you performance-wise.  Last
I checked, most Unix kernels still had limited-size FD arrays.

And as you say, ProcArray manipulations aren't going to be terribly
happy about large numbers of idle backends, either.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements
Следующее
От: tomas@tuxteam.de
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: bg worker: general purpose requirements