Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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