Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, postgres almost certainly will never change much of it so it's not
> a big deal, but it could if it wanted to and that what overcommit was
> designed for: banking on the fact that 99% of the time, that space
> isn't written to. Overcommit is precisely what makes forking as cheap
> as threads.
Nonsense. Copy-on-write is what makes forking as cheap as threads.
Now it's true that strict accounting requires the kernel to be prepared
to make a lot of page copies that it will never actually need in
practice. In my mind that's what swap space is for: it's the buffer
that the kernel *would* need if there were suddenly a lot more
copies-on-write than it'd been expecting.
As already noted, code pages are generally read-only and need not factor
into the calculation at all. I'm not sure how much potentially-writable
storage is really forked off by the postmaster, but I doubt it's in the
tens-of-MB range.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
