| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fast DSM segments |
| Date: | 2020-06-10 17:37:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobwYH84_y6CMU8uJykt-1sygWByzzPyvLbmU_z610DbwA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:03 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That all makes sense. Now I'm wondering if I should use exactly that
> word in the GUC... dynamic_shared_memory_preallocate?
I tend to prefer verb-object rather than object-verb word ordering,
because that's how English normally works, but I realize this is not a
unanimous view.
It's a little strange because the fact of preallocating it makes it
not dynamic any more. I don't know what to do about that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-10 17:37:59 | Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks) |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2020-06-10 16:40:59 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |