Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2007-02-05 > 16:42:13]: > >> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) 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.
Mmmm. Could you elaborate on what's that can't be bounded?
