From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hot Standby, release candidate? |
Date: | 2009-12-14 23:23:36 |
Message-ID: | 1260833017.1955.2674.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 16:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > What is the best way of restricting the hash table to a maximum size?
>
> There is nothing in dynahash that will enforce a maximum size against
> calling code that's not cooperating; and I'll resist any attempt to
> add such a thing, because it would create a serialization point across
> the whole hashtable.
No problem, just checking with you where you'd like stuff put.
> If you know that you need at most N entries in the hash table, you can
> preallocate that many at startup (note the second arg to ShmemInitHash)
> and be safe. If your calling code might go past that, you'll need to
> fix the calling code.
It's easy enough to count em on the way in and count em on the way out.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-14 23:45:52 | Re: Range types |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-14 21:39:51 | Re: Hot Standby, release candidate? |