Re: Posix Shared Mem patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date
Msg-id 28000.1340906406@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Posix Shared Mem patch  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Posix Shared Mem patch  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 07:43:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it *would* be a good idea to mlock if we could.  Setting shmem
>> large enough that it swaps has always been horrible for performance,
>> and in sysv-land there's no way to prevent that.  But we can't error
>> out on permissions failure.

> Its also a very good method to get into hard to diagnose OOM situations 
> though. Unless the machine is setup very careful and only runs postgres I 
> don't think its acceptable to do that.

Well, the permissions angle is actually a good thing here.  There is
pretty much no risk of the mlock succeeding on a box that hasn't been
specially configured --- and, in most cases, I think you'd need root
cooperation to raise postgres' RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.  So I think we could try
to mlock without having any effect for 99% of users.  The 1% who are
smart enough to raise the rlimit to something suitable would get better,
or at least more predictable, performance.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch