| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce dynamic shared memory areas. |
| Date: | 2016-12-05 17:41:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20995.1480959676@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It's not quite the same thing, because control->max_total_segment_size
> is a total of the memory used by all allocations plus the associated
> bookkeeping overhead, not the amount of memory used by a single
> allocation.
Really? Why doesn't it start out at zero then?
Given your later argumentation, I wonder why we're trying to implement
any kind of limit at all, rather than just operating on the principle
that it's the kernel's problem to enforce a limit. In short, maybe
removing max_total_segment_size would do fine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-05 18:00:45 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce dynamic shared memory areas. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-05 17:18:35 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce dynamic shared memory areas. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nico Williams | 2016-12-05 17:42:43 | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-05 17:32:59 | Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless |