Tom Lane wrote: > "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> How about we just emit a warning.. >>> >>> WARNING: Connections above 250 on Windows platforms may have >>> unpredictable results. > >> That's probably a better idea. I'll go look at that unless people feel we should just stick it in docd/faq? > > Unless we've got some credible basis for citing a particular number, > I don't think this will help much. ok. Maybe a note in the docs or FAQ at least? > Rainer Bauer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> My guess is that Windows is running out of handles. Each backend uses about >> 150 handles. 100 Backends means 15000 handles. Depending how many other >> programs are currently running the no. of startable backends will vary >> depending on the total handle limit Windows imposes. > > I find this theory very interesting; for one thing it explains the > reported variability of results, since the non-Postgres demand for > handles could be anything. Is there any way we could check it? > If it's accurate, what we ought to be whining about is some > combination of max_connections and max_files_per_process, rather > than only considering the former. It's not that simple. Merlin ran some checks, and drastically reducing max_files_per_process made no measurable difference. My best guess is it's due to the non-paged pool. Handles are a part of what goes in there, but only a part. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
