> On 29 Jun 2023, at 00:31, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2023-06-28 07:26:03 +0200, Ronan Dunklau wrote: >> I see it as a way to have *some* sort of control over the malloc >> implementation we use, instead of tuning our allocations pattern on top of it >> while treating it entirely as a black box. As for the tuning, I proposed >> earlier to replace this parameter expressed in terms of size as a "profile" >> (greedy / conservative) to make it easier to pick a sensible value. > > I don't think that makes it very usable - we'll still have idle connections > use up a lot more memory than now in some cases, and not in others, even > though it doesn't help. And it will be very heavily dependent on the OS and > glibc version.
Based on the comments in this thread and that no update has been posted addressing the objections I will mark this returned with feedback. Please feel free to resubmit to a future CF. -- Daniel Gustafsson