Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:32:25 -0500
- Message-id: <20050925003225(dot)GU7630(at)pervasive(dot)com>
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:21:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Of course maybe a better question is why we even limit based on the > > number of relations... > > Shared memory is fixed-size. True, but can't the fixed memory required per-relation just be shared with the fixed memory used to store free pages? Though, the idea mentioned recently of just using one shared memory segment for everything and allocating dynamically within that probably makes more sense... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Hannu Krosing
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- References:
- Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Tom Lane
- Discarding relations from FSM
- Prev by Date: Re: \d on database with a lot of tables is slow
- Next by Date: Re: \d on database with a lot of tables is slow
- Previous by thread: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Next by thread: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Indexes: