Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Shared memory and memory context question

From: Richard Hills <richard(at)playford(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shared memory and memory context question
Date: 2006-02-05 17:13:29
Message-ID: 200602051713.29159.richard@playford.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun February 5 2006 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT the data structures you are worried about don't have any readily
> predictable size, which means there is no good way to keep them in
> shared memory --- we can't dynamically resize shared memory.  So I think
> storing the rules in a table and loading into private memory at need is
> really the only reasonable solution.  Storing them in a table has a lot
> of other advantages anyway, mainly that you can manipulate them from
> SQL.

I have come to the conclusion that storing the rules and various other bits in 
tables is the best solution, although this will require a much more complex 
db structure than I had originally planned. Trying to allocate and free 
memory in shared memory is fairly straightforward, but likely to become 
incredibly messy.

Seeing as some of the rules already include load-value-from-db-on-demand, it 
should be fairly straightforward to extend it to load-rule-from-db-on-demand.

Thanks for all your help,

Regards,

Richard

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-02-05 17:53:01
Subject: Re: Krb5 & multiple DB connections
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-05 16:16:39
Subject: Re: Shared memory and memory context question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group