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: 20110209151619.GA1155@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
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?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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