Hello. At Mon, 4 Mar 2019 03:03:51 +0000, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha.take...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote in <4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A6F44564E@G01JPEXMBKW04> > Does this result show that hard-limit size option with memory accounting > doesn't harm to usual users who disable hard limit size option?
Not sure, but 4% seems beyond noise level. Planner requests mainly smaller allocation sizes especially for list operations. If we implement it for slab allocator, the degradation would be more significant. We *are* suffering from endless bloat of system cache (and some other stuffs) and there is no way to deal with it. The soft limit feature actually eliminates the problem with no degradation and even accelerates execution in some cases. Infinite bloat is itself a problem, but if the processes just needs more but finite size of memory, just additional memory or less max_connections is enough. What Andres and Robert suggested is we need more convincing reason for the hard limit feature other than "some is wanting it". The degradation of the crude accounting stuff is not the primary issue here. I think. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
