On 6 April 2011 17:57, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 06.04.2011 17:46, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> "Kevin Grittner"<kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >>> >>> Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... The one I'm most >>>> worried about is "SSI: three different HTABs contend for shared >>>> memory in a free-for-all" - because there's no patch for that yet, >>>> and I am wary of breaking something mucking around with it. >> >>> I haven't seen any objection to Heikki's suggestion for how to >>> handle the shared memory free-for-all: >> >> I confess to not having been reading the discussions about SSI very >> much, but ... do we actually care whether there's a free-for-all? >> What's the downside to letting the remaining shmem get claimed by >> whichever table uses it first? > > It's leads to odd behavior. You start the database, and your application > runs fine. Then you restart the database, and now you get "out of shared > memory" errors from transactions that used to work. > > It's not the end of the world, but I'd prefer stable, repeatable behavior, > even though having the slack shared memory be grabbed by whoever needs it > first might in theory lead to better utilization of resources.
It sounds a bit apocalyptic to me, if that really is happening. -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
