Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 08:00:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the permissions angle is actually a good thing here. There is
>> pretty much no risk of the mlock succeeding on a box that hasn't been
>> specially configured --- and, in most cases, I think you'd need root
>> cooperation to raise postgres' RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. So I think we could try
>> to mlock without having any effect for 99% of users. The 1% who are
>> smart enough to raise the rlimit to something suitable would get better,
>> or at least more predictable, performance.
> The heightened limit might just as well target at another application and be
> setup a bit to widely. I agree that it is useful, but I think it requires its
> own setting, defaulting to off. Especially as there are no experiences with
> running a larger pg instance that way.
[ shrug... ] I think you're inventing things to be afraid of, and
ignoring a very real problem that mlock could fix.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Geoghegan||Date: 2012-06-28 18:18:57|
|Subject: Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay +
commit_siblings (sort of)|
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2012-06-28 18:06:18|
|Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch|