I'm sorry I misunderstood about the extension you wrote. Is there some way not to use shared memory for it?
Cheers, David. On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 11:46:25AM +0400, knizhnik wrote: > Hi David, > > Sorry, but I do not completely understand your suggestions: > > 1. IMCS really contains single patch file sysv_shmem.patch. > Applying this patch is not mandatory for using IMCS: it just solves > the problem with support of > 256Gb of shared memory. > Right now PostgreSQL is not able to use more than 256Gb shared > buffers at Linux with standard 4kb pages. > I have found proposal for using MAP_HUGETLB flag in commit fest: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131125032920.ga23...@toroid.org > > but unfortunately it was rejected. Hugepages are intensively used by > Oracle and I think that them will be useful for improving > performance of PorstreSQL. So not just IMCS can benefit from this > patch. My patch is much more simple - I specially limited scope of > this patch to one file. Certainly switch huge tlb on/off should be > done through postgresql.conf configuration file. > > In any case - IMCS can be used without this patch: you just could > not use more than 256Gb memory, even if your system has more RAM. > > 2. I do not understand "The add-on is not formatted as an EXTENSION" > IMCS was created as standard extension - I just look at the examples > of other PostgreSQL extensions included in PostgreSQL distribution > (for example pg_stat_statements). It can be added using "create > extension imcs" and removed "drop extension imcs" commands. > > If there are some violations of PostgreSQL extensions rules, please > let me know, I will fix them. > But I thought that I have done everything in legal way. > > > > > > > On 01/04/2014 03:21 AM, David Fetter wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 08:48:24PM +0400, knizhnik wrote: > >>I want to announce implementation of In-Memory Columnar Store > >>extension for PostgreSQL. > >>Vertical representation of data is stored in PostgreSQL shared memory. > >Thanks for the hard work! > > > >I noticed a couple of things about this that probably need some > >improvement. > > > >1. There are unexplained patches against other parts of PostgreSQL, > >which means that they may break other parts of PostgreSQL in equally > >inexplicable ways. Please rearrange the patch so it doesn't require > >this. This leads to: > > > >2. The add-on is not formatted as an EXTENSION, which would allow > >people to add it or remove it cleanly. > > > >Would you be so kind as to fix these? > > > >Cheers, > >David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
