On L, 2005-09-24 at 19:32 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:21:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Of course maybe a better question is why we even limit based on the
number of relations...
Shared memory is fixed-size.
True, but can't the fixed memory required
Per http://lnk.nu/developer.postgresql.org/43b.c:
* The number of distinct relations tracked is limited by a configuration
* variable (MaxFSMRelations). When this would be exceeded, we discard the
* least recently used relation. A doubly-linked list with move-to-front
* behavior keeps track
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Per http://lnk.nu/developer.postgresql.org/43b.c:
* The number of distinct relations tracked is limited by a configuration
* variable (MaxFSMRelations). When this would be exceeded, we discard the
* least recently used relation. A doubly-linked list with
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rather than keeping track of which relation was last used (presumably
everytime something hits the FSM), wouldn't it make more sense to just
drop the relation with the smallest amount of free space in the map?
Why? That certainly wouldn't be cheaper to
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:21:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Of course maybe a better question is why we even limit based on the
number of relations...
Shared memory is fixed-size.
True, but can't the fixed memory required per-relation just be shared
with the fixed memory used to store free
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:21:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Of course maybe a better question is why we even limit based on the
number of relations...
Shared memory is fixed-size.
True, but can't the fixed memory required per-relation just be shared
with the fixed
