On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> It's not quite the same thing, because control->max_total_segment_size >> is a total of the memory used by all allocations plus the associated >> bookkeeping overhead, not the amount of memory used by a single >> allocation. > > Really? Why doesn't it start out at zero then?
It seems I misspoke. It's an upper limit on the total amount of memory that could be used, not the amount actually used. > Given your later argumentation, I wonder why we're trying to implement > any kind of limit at all, rather than just operating on the principle > that it's the kernel's problem to enforce a limit. In short, maybe > removing max_total_segment_size would do fine. Well, if we did that, then we'd have to remove dsa_set_size_limit(). I don't want to do that, because I think it's useful for the calling code to be able to ask this code to enforce a limit that may be less than the point at which allocations would start failing. We do that sort of thing all the time (e.g. work_mem, max_locks_per_transaction) for good reasons. Let's not re-engineer this feature now on the strength of "it produces a compiler warning". I think the easiest thing to do here is change SIZE_MAX to (Size) -1. If there are deeper problems that need to be addressed, we can consider those separately. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers