On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> there's a fairly generous but fixed-at-startup-time limit on how many >> segments you can have. In practice I don't think this matters much, >> but it was a sobering reminder that the main shared memory segment, >> with all of its inflexibility, has important reliability properties >> that are hard to replicate in more dynamic scenarios. > > Why wouldn't it be possible to have the same arrangment for > shared_buffers, where you have more entires than you 'need' at startup > but which then allows you to add more shared segments later? I do see > that we would need an additional bit of indirection to handle that, > which might be too much overhead, but the concept seems possible. Isn't > that more-or-less how the kernel handles dynamic memory..?
Yeah, I think that something like would be possible, but the synchronization would be tricky, and it wouldn't work at all with System V shared memory or Windows shared memory, which apparently can't be resized after creation. Also, it would rely on the system administrator having a sensible setting for max_on_the_fly_shared_buffers and only having the wrong setting for initial_shared_buffers_until_i_change_it_later, which might not cover a very high percentage of the cases that arise in practice. >> Under the currently-proposed design, it can't be used to do any such >> thing. It can only be used to modify some auto.conf file which lives >> in $PGDATA. It's therefore no different from the ops perspective than >> ALTER DATABASE or ALTER USER - except that it allows all settings to >> be changed rather than only a subset. > > Claiming that modifying a file *included from a file in /etc* doesn't > modify things under /etc is disingenuous, imv. I think you're getting way too hung up on the fact that the proposed auto.conf will be stored as a flat file. From your comments upthread, I gather that you'd be rejoicing if it were a table. The only reason we're not doing that is because of the possibility that something in auto.conf might keep the server from starting. I don't think that's gonna be very common now that we're mostly out from under the System V shared memory limits, but we'll see. As you point out, it might also be worth fixing: maybe we can find some way to arrange things so that the server will always be able to start up regardless of how badly messed-up auto.conf is... but that's a different patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers