| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory |
| Date: | 2004-02-03 16:12:49 |
| Message-ID: | 200402031612.i13GCnS10394@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > > any chance of having some kind of max_total_sort_mem setting to keep
> > > machines out of swap storms, or would that be a nightmare to implement?
> >
> > I don't see any reasonable way to do that.
>
> I didn't think there was. just hoping... :-)
Someone asked for this in Copenhagen, and I said we can't see how to do
it. The only idea I had as to give the first requestor 50% of the
total, then a second query 50% of the remaining memory. Is that better
than what we have?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-03 16:14:34 | Re: [PATCHES] log session end - again |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-03 16:12:03 | Re: session IDs |