On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Ants Aasma <a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> It's imo quite clearly better to keep it allocated. For one after >> postmaster started the checkpointer successfully you don't need to be >> worried about later failures to allocate memory if you allocate it once >> (unless the checkpointer FATALs out which should be exceedingly rare - >> we're catching ERRORs). It's much much more likely to succeed >> initially. Secondly it's not like there's really that much time where no >> checkpointer isn't running. > > In principle you could do the sort with the full sized array and then > compress it to a list of buffer IDs that need to be written out. This > way most of the time you only need a small array and the large array > is only needed for a fraction of a second.
It's not the size of the array that's the problem; it's the size of the detonation when the allocation fails. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: 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
