Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSI patch version 14

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>,Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>,Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Date: 2011-02-09 15:16:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:09:48PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> If we don't allocate all the memory up front, does that allow memory
> to be dynamically shared between different hash tables in shared
> memory?  I'm thinking not, but...
> Frankly, I think this is an example of how our current shared memory
> model is a piece of garbage.

What other model(s) might work better?

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres:

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-02-09 15:21:37
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2011-02-09 15:07:42
Subject: Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group