Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
- To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
- Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:15:20 +0300
- Message-id: <1127632521(dot)4865(dot)58(dot)camel(at)fuji(dot)krosing(dot)net>
On L, 2005-09-24 at 19:32 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > 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... I guess that communicating those changes to all running backends may be expensive. -- Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
- References:
- Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- Discarding relations from FSM
- Prev by Date: Re: Vacuum questions...
- Next by Date: Re: \x output blowing up
- Previous by thread: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Next by thread: \d on database with a lot of tables is slow
- Indexes: