| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit? |
| Date: | 2014-06-20 03:24:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20140620032435.GD1069299@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 04:39:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > We could do better by accounting for memory usage ourselves, inside
> > the memory-context system, but that'd probably impose some overhead we
> > don't have today.
> I wonder how practical it would be to forestall Noah's scenario by
> preallocating all the stack space we want before enabling the rlimit.
I think that's worth a closer look. Compared to doing our own memory usage
tracking, it has the major advantage of isolating the added CPU overhead at
backend start.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2014-06-20 05:54:32 | Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-06-20 02:01:12 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |