Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you think dynamic allocation from shared_buffers? ie, remove
> > a buffer page in the shared buffer pool and use the 8kB of memory
> > for another purpose.
>
> The problem with that is that (a) it creates more contention load on the
> shared buffer
From: "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm of the opinion that the solution to FSM being fixed-size is to
keep
>> it somewhere else, ie, on disk (possibly with some sort of cache in
>> shared memory for currently-used entries).
>
> What do you think
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm of the opinion that the solution to FSM being fixed-size is to keep
>> it somewhere else, ie, on disk (possibly with some sort of cache in
>> shared memory for currently-used entries).
> What do you think dyn
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that the solution to FSM being fixed-size is to keep
> it somewhere else, ie, on disk (possibly with some sort of cache in
> shared memory for currently-used entries).
What do you think dynamic allocation from shared_buffers? ie, remove
a
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The real problem is that we don't have, and don't particularly want, a memory
> manager for the shared memory.
No, the real problem is that you can't re-size a SysV shared memory
segment on the fly --- there's no portable API for that, anyway.
Therefore
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Hey, is there any good reason why FSM is sized by a static GUC variable?
>> Why couldn't we just automatically have the system use as much memory as
>> it needs for FSM, provided that it's not more than some reason
Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> Hey, is there any good reason why FSM is sized by a static GUC variable?
> Why couldn't we just automatically have the system use as much memory as
> it needs for FSM, provided that it's not more than some reasonable limit,
> like 15% of shared memory?
>
> Seems
All,
Hey, is there any good reason why FSM is sized by a static GUC variable?
Why couldn't we just automatically have the system use as much memory as
it needs for FSM, provided that it's not more than some reasonable limit,
like 15% of shared memory?
Seems like that would eliminate one area
