From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Estimating total amount of shared memory required by postmaster |
Date: | 2011-06-03 05:52:39 |
Message-ID: | 4DE876A7.5000501@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02.06.2011 21:58, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We've recently come across the task of estimating the size of shared memory
> required for PostgreSQL to start. This comes from the problem of validating
> postgresql.conf files
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01831.php) i.e.
> checking that the server will be able to start with new configuration options
> without actually performing the restart. Currently, I see a couple of ways
> to get the estimate:
>
> - Use the code from ipci.c to get the total size of the shared memory segment
> that Postmaster would be allocating with the given configuration options
> (shared_buffers, etc.). This would require getting the actual amount of
> available shared memory somehow, which is platform dependent and might not
> be very reliable. The other downside is that the code would need to be
> updated if the original estimates in ipci.c changes.
>
> - Try to actually allocate the shared memory in a way postmaster does this
> nowadays, if the process fails - analyze the error code to check whether the
> failure is due to the shmmax or shmmall limits being too low. This would
> need to be run as a separate process (not postmaster's child) to avoid
> messing with the postmaster's own shared memory, which means that this would
> be hard to implement as a user-callable stored function.
>
> I'm also looking for other ideas. Any suggestions?
There's a patch floating around to use POSIX shared memory, which
doesn't obey shmmax and shmmall limits:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/D9EDACF7-53F1-4355-84F8-2E74CD19D22D@themactionfaction.com
That would allow us to fly under the radar and avoid the whole issue. If
you could review that patch, that would be great.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Golub | 2011-06-03 05:54:13 | Re: [HACKERS] PQdeleteTuple function in libpq |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-03 05:14:46 | Re: Domains versus polymorphic functions, redux |