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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date
Msg-id 383.1340907078@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Posix Shared Mem patch  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 08:00:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> The heightened limit might just as well target at another application and be 
> setup a bit to widely. I agree that it is useful, but I think it requires its 
> own setting, defaulting to off. Especially as there are no experiences with 
> running a larger pg instance that way.

[ shrug... ]  I think you're inventing things to be afraid of, and
ignoring a very real problem that mlock could fix.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

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