From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals |
Date: | 2015-09-28 17:13:55 |
Message-ID: | CACACo5Qfk4U5wacm_0_kCgSBHnFDmHOMqiYLjV8=x_MwSHCK9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> 2015-09-28 12:37 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr <
> oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>:
>
>>
>>> I didn't propose too different solution. There is only one difference -
>>> sharing DSM for smaller data. It is similar to using usual shared memory.
>>>
>>
>> Does this mean implementing some sort of allocator on top of the shared
>> memory segment? If so, how are you going to prevent fragmentation?
>>
>
> yes, simple memory allocator is necessary in this case. But it should be
> really simple - you can allocate only fixed size blocks - 10KB, 100KB and
> 1MB from separate buffers. So the fragmentation is not possible.
>
Maybe we're talking about completely different ideas, but I don't see how
fixing the block helps to fight fragmentation, in particular. Can you
sketch a simple example? E.g. 400 backends share the common segment and
all of them want to publish a plan of ~1kb, for example. Now what?
--
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-09-28 18:06:35 | Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-09-28 17:09:54 | Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals |