| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Koczan" <pjkoczan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Dawid Kuroczko" <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL memory consumption? |
| Date: | 2008-02-24 04:16:31 |
| Message-ID: | 29390.1203826591@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Peter Koczan" <pjkoczan(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but I believe that Linux (and
> probably other modern Unices) does code-sharing, meaning that separate
> processes referring to the same code/libraries will refer to the same
> copy in physical memory.
> So, even though each process is seeing 40 MB of libpgsql, there's
> likely only 1 copy in physical memory. So, the total memory
> consumption in the system from this library is 40 MB, not
> 40*num_processes MB.
plpgsql.so is not 40MB ... on my machines it's well under 1MB. Anyway
the OP specifically stated he was not counting shared text segments.
So there's something pretty weird about these numbers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tena Sakai | 2008-02-24 06:48:53 | Re: 8.3.0 postinstallation trouble |
| Previous Message | Peter Koczan | 2008-02-24 03:17:08 | Re: PL/pgSQL memory consumption? |