Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during

From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu>
To: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during
Date: 2004-03-21 17:35:37
Message-ID: mjqoeqqnlw6.fsf@cs.berkeley.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32

>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:

>> The bigger problem though with this is that it makes the
>> problem of list overflow much worse. The hard part about
>> shared memory management is not so much that the available
>> space is small, as that the available space is fixed --- we
>> can't easily change it after postmaster start. The more finely

Again, I can suggest the shared memory MemoryContext we use in
TelegraphCQ that is based on the OSSP libmm memory manager. We use it
to grow and shrink shared memory at will.

--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arthur Ward 2004-03-21 17:48:26 Re: Unbalanced Btree Indices ...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-21 17:23:39 Re: [HACKERS] listening addresses

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-03-22 04:17:36 Re: xlog.c timezone name size
Previous Message Barry Lind 2004-03-17 15:59:22 Re: shutdown problems on win32