From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Limit allocated memory per session |
Date: | 2009-10-01 15:50:54 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070910010850k549f8d80nc940e82ebbe768f2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane escreveu:
>>> daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
>>>> I'd like to propose adding a new GUC to limit the amount of memory a backend
>>>> can allocate for its own use.
>>>
>>> Use ulimit.
>>>
>> What about plataforms (Windows) that don't have ulimit?
>
> Get a real operating system ;-)
>
> Seriously, the proposed patch introduces overhead into a place that is
> already a known hot spot, in return for not much of anything. It will
> *not* bound backend memory use very accurately, because there is no way
> to track raw malloc() calls. And I think that 99% of users will not
> find it useful.
What WOULD be useful is to find a way to provide a way to configure
work_mem per backend rather than per executor node. But that's a much
harder problem.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-10-01 15:56:09 | Re: FSM search modes |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-10-01 15:48:29 | Re: Hot Standby on git |