| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Discarding relations from FSM |
| Date: | 2005-09-25 07:15:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1127632521.4865.58.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On L, 2005-09-24 at 19:32 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:21:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Of course maybe a better question is why we even limit based on the
> > > number of relations...
> >
> > Shared memory is fixed-size.
>
> True, but can't the fixed memory required per-relation just be shared
> with the fixed memory used to store free pages?
>
> Though, the idea mentioned recently of just using one shared memory
> segment for everything and allocating dynamically within that probably
> makes more sense...
I guess that communicating those changes to all running backends may be
expensive.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-09-25 09:18:36 | Re: \x output blowing up |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-09-25 07:10:22 | Re: \d on database with a lot of tables is slow |