On 16 October 2012 13:42, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 14 October 2012 09:19, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> This is a very useful optimisation, for both the low and the high end. > > Well, I'm about ready to mark this one "ready for committer". There is > this outstanding issue in my revision of August 17th, though: > > + /* > + * XXX: This feels quite brittle; is there a better > principled approach, > + * that does not violate modularity? > + */ > + newmemtupsize = (int) floor(oldmemtupsize * allowedMem / > memNowUsed); > + state->fin_growth = true; > > I suppose that I should just recognise that this *is* nothing more > than a heuristic, and leave it at that.
It's a simple and reasonable heuristic, and a great improvement on the previous situation. If you describe in detail that it is a heuristic and why that is proposed over other approaches that should be sufficient for future generations to read and understand. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
