Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:35 AM Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote:
>> It seems like if we really think the total number of database objects
>> is reasonably limited to scales that fit in RAM there would be a much
>> simpler database design that would just store the catalog tables in
>> simple in-memory data structures and map them all on startup without
>> doing all the work Postgres does to make relational storage scale.
> I think efforts to do such a thing have gotten caught up in solving
> issues around visibility and managing the relationship between local and
> global caches [1]. It doesn't seem like the primary technical concern
> was memory usage.
AFAIR, the previous stats collector implementation had no such provision
either: it'd just keep adding hashtable entries as it received info about
new objects. The only thing that's changed is that now those entries are
in shared memory instead of process-local memory. We'd be well advised to
be sure that memory can be swapped out under pressure, but otherwise I'm
not seeing that things have gotten worse.
regards, tom lane
