Tom Lane-2 wrote:
>
>
> I don't think it's a leak, exactly: it's just that the "relcache" entry
> for each one of these views occupies about 100K. A backend that touches
> N of the views is going to need about N*100K in relcache space. I can't
> get terribly excited about that. Trying to redu
Merlin Moncure-2 wrote:
>
>
> ... I've coded a
> lot of multi schema designs and they tend to either go the one
> session/schema route or the connection pooling route. Either way,
> cache memory usage tends to work itself out pretty well (it's never
> been a problem for me before at least). I
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
>> I think you may have uncovered a leak (I stand corrected).
>
>> The number of schemas in your test is irrelevant -- the leak is
>> happening in proportion to the number of views (set via \setrandom
>> tidx 1 10). At 1
Merlin Moncure writes:
> I think you may have uncovered a leak (I stand corrected).
> The number of schemas in your test is irrelevant -- the leak is
> happening in proportion to the number of views (set via \setrandom
> tidx 1 10). At 1 I don't think it exists at all -- at 100 memory use
> grow
