| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Automatically setting work_mem |
| Date: | 2006-03-17 21:45:17 |
| Message-ID: | 10420.1142631917@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> So perhaps we could keep the shaded_work_mem in actual shared memory,
> and alloc it to processes from there ?
No, that's utterly not reasonable, both from an allocation point of view
(you'd have to make shared memory enormous, and not all platforms will
like that) and from a locking point of view.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2006-03-17 22:28:31 | Re: Seperate command-line histories for seperate databases |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-03-17 21:35:03 | Re: Seperate command-line histories for seperate databases |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-03-17 22:29:34 | Re: Automatically setting work_mem |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-03-17 21:07:37 | Re: Automatically setting work_mem |