* Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2007-02-05 16:42:13]: > Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2007-02-05 > > 16:30:39]: > > > >> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > >> > >> > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2007-02-05 > >> > 15:46:09]: > >> > > >> >> Jano wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > I'm going to test now a standard 128m node with no insertions nor > >> >> > clients running... > >> >> > >> >> (Actually what I have done is to put all my inserts in "will never > >> >> finish". Should this cease all local insertion activity, Toad?) > >> > > >> > No. > >> > >> Well, then I'll remove my inserts. But how is then interpreted this > >> priority setting? "Will be processed iif there's nothing else going on?" > > > > It depends on the scheduler policy you've choosen. If you are using the > > default (HARD) then yes. > > Ok. > > A basic question in this leak hunt: is the insertion process designed to use > constant (or, rather, upper bounded) memory per insertion? >
No but there is a minimum.
