From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | jim(at)nasby(dot)net |
Cc: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Martin Foster <martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Performance on OpenBSD |
Date: | 2003-05-21 19:37:32 |
Message-ID: | m3of1w2irn.fsf@varsoon.wireboard.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:50:31PM -0400, Doug McNaught wrote:
> > Per-connection is easy: 'man ulimit'
> >
> > Across all connections is possible if your system supports per-user
> > limits (in addition to per-process) but otherwise all the bookkeeping
> > would have to be done in the server, kept in shared memory and managed
> > with a semaphore. Somehow I doubt you'd get that patch accepted. :)
>
> Where would you do the ulimit? In the pgsql ~/.profile?
In whatever script starts the postmaster.
> More importantly, what happens when this limit is hit? I'm guessing the
> engine would fail, which isn't very helpful. If the server tracked
> resource usage on it's own, it would be able to throttle back things
> like sort memory when things started getting tight.
That's a lot of overhead for a feature that's not needed for most
installations.
It's already not that hard to put a crude limit on memory usage: set
your shared buffers and sort_mem appropriately, taking into account
the number of connections expected and the memory in the system. I
fail to see how more detailed resource accounting would be a win,
given that the application doesn't know what other apps are on the
system and how close it is to the swap limit at any given time.
-Doug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Gration | 2003-05-21 19:47:49 | Unique index hassles |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-05-21 19:32:46 | Re: SELECT DISTINCT ON bug? |