On 10/21/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I tried generating idle connections in an effort to reproduce
> > Laurent's problem, but I ran into a local limit instead: for each
> > backend, postmaster creates a thread and burns 4MB of its 2GB address
> > space. It fails around 490.
>
> Oh, that's interesting. That's actually a sideeffect of us increasing
> the stack size for the postgres.exe executable in order to work on other
> things. By default, it burns 1MB/thread, but ours will do 4MB. Never
> really thought of the problem that it'll run out of address space.
> Unfortunately, that size can't be changed in the CreateThread() call -
> only the initially committed size can be changed there.
>
> There are two ways to get around it - one is not using a thread for each
> backend, but a single thread that handles them all and then some sync
> objects around it. We originally considered this but said we won't
> bother changing it because the current way is simpler, and the overhead
> of a thread is tiny compared to a process. I don't think anybody even
> thought about the fact that it'd run you out of address space...
I'd probably take the approach of combining win32_waitpid() and
threads. You'd end up with 1 thread per 64 backends; when something
interesting happens the thread could push the info onto a queue, which
the new win32_waitpid() would check. Use APCs to add new backends to
threads with free slots.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
