Re: SSI bug?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>,<yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI bug?
Date: 2011-03-27 19:45:34
Message-ID: 4D8F4D8E020000250003BD0E@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> There might perhaps be some value in adding a warning like this if
> it were enabled per-table (and not enabled by default).

It only fires where a maximum has been declared and is exceeded.
Most HTABs don't declare a maximum -- they leave it at zero. These
are ignored. Where this fires on a table in shared memory, we're
into a situation where the over-allocation to one table may cause
failure in an unrelated area. If we're not going to change that,
some indication of which one actually exceeded its limits seems like
a helpful bit of diagnostic information.

> But I'd want to see a specific reason for it, not just "let's see
> if we can scare users with a WARNING appearing out of nowhere".

Perhaps LOG would be more appropriate than WARNING?

-Kevin

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2011-03-27 20:09:05 Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-03-27 19:40:22 Re: SSI bug?