From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: dynamically allocating chunks from shared memory |
Date: | 2010-07-26 19:16:27 |
Message-ID: | 4C4D98BB0200002500033CFE@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I actually think that memory management is one of the weakest
> elements of our current architecture
I'm actually pretty impressed by the memory contexts in PostgreSQL.
Apparently I'm not alone in that, either; a paper by Hellerstein,
Stonebraker, and Hamilton[1] has this in section 7.2 (Memory
Allocator):
"The interested reader may want to browse the open-source PostgreSQL
code. This utilizes a fairly sophisticated memory allocator."
I think the problem here is that we don't extend that sophistication
to shared memory.
-Kevin
[1] Joseph M. Hellerstein, Michael Stonebraker and James Hamilton.
2007. Architecture of a Database System. Foundations and Trends(R)
in Databases Vol. 1, No. 2 (2007) 141*259.
http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/fntdb07-architecture.pdf
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-07-26 19:49:05 | Re: patch (for 9.1) string functions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-26 19:07:08 | Re: patch (for 9.1) string functions |