Is this a TODO? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > BTW, we're going to be testing this patch on Sun Niagara servers. What's > > the outstanding bug with it? I don't quite follow. > > It's not acceptable as-is because of the risk of running out of shared > memory for hashtable entries. In the existing code, there's a clear > upper bound on the number of entries in the block-number-to-buffer hash > table, ie, shared_buffers + 1 (the +1 because we acquire the new entry > before releasing the old when reassigning a buffer). With multiple > hashtables serving subsets of the buffers, the different tables might > at different times need different numbers of entries, and that makes it > a lot harder to be sure you won't run out of memory. I don't say it's > insoluble, but the current patch wasn't even claimed to be safe by its > author... > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
