|From:||Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:30:15PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/20/2018 02:11 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> > max_shared_dictionaries_size is defined as PGC_SIGHUP now. Added check
> > of a new value to disallow to set zero if there are loaded dictionaries
> > and to decrease maximum allowed size if loaded size is greater than the
> > new value.
> I wonder if these restrictions needed? I mean, why not to allow setting
> max_shared_dictionaries_size below the size of loaded dictionaries?
> Of course, on the one hand those restriction seem sensible. On the other
> hand, perhaps in some cases it would be useful to allow violating them?
> I mean, why not to simply disable loading of new dictionaries when
> (max_shared_dictionaries_size < loaded_size)
> Maybe I'm over-thinking this though. It's probably safer and less
> surprising to enforce the restrictions.
Hm, yes in some cases this check may be over-engineering. I thought that
it is reasonable and safer in v7 patch. But there are similar GUCs,
wal_keep_segments and max_wal_size, which don't do additional checks.
And people are fine with them. So I removed that check from the variable.
Please find the attached new version of the patch.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Thomas Munro||2018-03-21 10:10:27||Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12.2|
|Previous Message||Michael Banck||2018-03-21 08:07:41||Re: [PoC PATCH] Parallel dump to /dev/null|