From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Add GUC to tune glibc's malloc implementation. |
Date: | 2023-06-22 14:07:12 |
Message-ID: | 4052262.1687442832@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> writes:
> Le jeudi 22 juin 2023, 15:49:36 CEST Tom Lane a écrit :
>> Aren't these same settings controllable via environment variables?
>> I could see adding some docs suggesting that you set thus-and-such
>> values in the postmaster's startup script. Admittedly, the confusion
>> argument is perhaps still raisable; but we have a similar docs section
>> discussing controlling Linux OOM behavior, and I've not heard much
>> complaints about that.
> Yes they are, but controlling them via an environment variable for the whole
> cluster defeats the point: different backends have different workloads, and
> being able to make sure for example the OLAP user is memory-greedy while the
> OLTP one is as conservative as possible is a worthwile goal.
And what is going to happen when we switch to a thread model?
(I don't personally think that's going to happen, but some other
people do.) If we only document how to adjust this cluster-wide,
then we won't have a problem with that. But I'm not excited about
introducing functionality that is both platform-dependent and
unsupportable in a threaded system.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-06-22 14:16:06 | Re: memory leak in trigger handling (since PG12) |
Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-06-22 14:03:41 | Re: bgwriter doesn't flush WAL stats |