From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Date: | 2012-06-28 18:11:18 |
Message-ID: | 383.1340907078@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-06-28 18:18:57 | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-06-28 18:06:18 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |