Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] Postmaster options, process spawning, logging, etc.

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-12-16T14:40:39Z

   Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net> writes:
   > 1. Matthew's problem sounds an awful lot like what's being reported
   > by Lucio Andres Perez in v6.4.2. Maybe some kind of bug in detecting
   > and handling over-the-limit backends.
   
   6.4.* didn't really have any check/defense against spawning more
   backends than it had resources for.  6.5 does check and enforce the
   maxbackends limit.  It's certainly possible that Matthew's running into
   some kind of resource-exhaustion problem, but I doubt that it's just
   the number of backends that's at issue, except indirectly.  (He could
   be running out of swap space or filetable slots, possibly.)
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Postmaster options, process spawning, logging, etc.

   Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net> — 1999-12-16T19:26:58Z

   Ah. I hadn't noticed they were that far back. I've passed your news on
   to our distraught friends in Columbia with a suggestion to try the 6.5.3
   RPM. 
   
   Tom Lane wrote:
   > 
   > Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net> writes:
   > > 1. Matthew's problem sounds an awful lot like what's being reported
   > > by Lucio Andres Perez in v6.4.2. Maybe some kind of bug in detecting
   > > and handling over-the-limit backends.
   > 
   > 6.4.* didn't really have any check/defense against spawning more
   > backends than it had resources for.  6.5 does check and enforce the
   > maxbackends limit.  It's certainly possible that Matthew's running into
   > some kind of resource-exhaustion problem, but I doubt that it's just
   > the number of backends that's at issue, except indirectly.  (He could
   > be running out of swap space or filetable slots, possibly.)
   > 
   >                         regards, tom lane
   > 
   > ************