From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Misleading "epoll_create1 failed: Too many open files"
In-reply-to: <xjjx7r4xa7beixuu4qtkdhnwdbchrrpo3gaeb3jsbinvvdiat5@cwjw55mna5of>
References: <xjjx7r4xa7beixuu4qtkdhnwdbchrrpo3gaeb3jsbinvvdiat5@cwjw55mna5of>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:10:51 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1682219.1732638956.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 11:35:56 -0500
Message-ID: <1682220.1732638956@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1682220.1732638956%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I think it's rather confusing to claim that epoll_create1() failed when =
we
> didn't even call it.
> Why are we misattributing the failure to a system call that we didn't ma=
ke?

I think the idea was that this mechanism is equivalent to an EMFILE
limit.  But if you feel a need to make a distinction, this seems fine:

>                 elog(ERROR, "AcquireExternalFD, for epoll_create1, faile=
d: %m");

You should probably check all of 3d475515a, because I think
I applied the same idea in more than one place.

			regards, tom lane