Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> It's not quite the same thing, because control->max_total_segment_size
> is a total of the memory used by all allocations plus the associated
> bookkeeping overhead, not the amount of memory used by a single
> allocation.
Really? Why doesn't it start out at zero then?
Given your later argumentation, I wonder why we're trying to implement
any kind of limit at all, rather than just operating on the principle
that it's the kernel's problem to enforce a limit. In short, maybe
removing max_total_segment_size would do fine.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
