| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Discarding relations from FSM |
| Date: | 2005-09-25 01:20:03 |
| Message-ID: | 200509250120.j8P1K3E17999@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 memory used to store free pages?
The assumption is that the admin wants to control the allotment of
memory, and doesn't want it to shift based on (perhaps temporary) load.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-09-25 03:25:30 | Re: Vacuum questions... |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-09-25 00:38:18 | Re: \d on database with a lot of tables is slow |