Re: New feature proposal

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Subject: Re: New feature proposal
Date: 2006-05-19 17:05:59
Message-ID: 200605191005.59206.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marc,

> The add-in would not "know" how much had been allocated to it, but could
> be told through it's own config file.  I envisage something like:
>
> in postgresql.conf
>
> # add_in_shmem = 0    # Amount of shared mem to set aside for add-ins
>                       # in KBytes
> add_in_shem = 64
>
>
> in veil.conf
>
> veil_shmem = 32       # Amount of shared memory we can use from
>                       # the postgres add-ins shared memory pool
>
> I think this is better than add-ins simply stealing from, and contending
> for, postgres shared memory which is the only real alternative right
> now.

Hmmmm ... what would happen if I did:

add_in_shmem = 64
veil_shmem = 128

or even:

add_in_shmem = 128
veil_shmem = 64
plperl_shmem = 64
pljava_shmem = 64

... seems like we'll need to check for overallocation, no?

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-19 17:08:11 Re: text_position worst case runtime
Previous Message Marc Munro 2006-05-19 16:56:08 Re: New feature proposal