Re: Memory usage per postmaster process - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Memory usage per postmaster process
Date
Msg-id 4559.1383489471@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Memory usage per postmaster process  (Grzegorz Tańczyk <goliatus@polzone.pl>)
List pgsql-general
=?UTF-8?B?R3J6ZWdvcnogVGHFhGN6eWs=?= <goliatus@polzone.pl> writes:
> On 11/02/2013 08:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Author: Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Branch: master Release: REL9_1_BR [3e5f9412d] 2010-10-06 19:31:05 -0400
>>
>> Reduce the memory requirement for large ispell dictionaries.
> I checked this patch:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi=4fUi1zoFMpZ==Yf14RJDv_G1xgAkVQMDyEtBk@mail.gmail.com

> I can't find it here:
> http://doxygen.postgresql.org/spell_8c_source.html

> I also don't see those changes in 9.3.1 source. Status in commitfest
> list is " Committed". I can't see hold_memory anywhere.

If you read the rest of the discussion of the patch, you'd find out that
what got committed was not all that much like Pavel's original.  But
it has the same effect.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Grzegorz Tańczyk
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory usage per postmaster process
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: GSSAPI server side on Linux, SSPI client side on Windows