Robert Haas escreveu: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eu...@timbira.com> writes: >>> Tom Lane escreveu: >>>> daveg <da...@sonic.net> writes: >>>>> I'd like to propose adding a new GUC to limit the amount of memory a >>>>> backend >>>>> can allocate for its own use. >>>> Use ulimit. >>>> >>> What about plataforms (Windows) that don't have ulimit? >> Get a real operating system ;-) >> >> Seriously, the proposed patch introduces overhead into a place that is >> already a known hot spot, in return for not much of anything. It will >> *not* bound backend memory use very accurately, because there is no way >> to track raw malloc() calls. And I think that 99% of users will not >> find it useful. > > What WOULD be useful is to find a way to provide a way to configure > work_mem per backend rather than per executor node. But that's a much > harder problem. > I see. Tough problem is: how do we get per backend memory usage accurately? Is it relying on OS specific API the only way?
-- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
