Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:06:30AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> The only thing I've been on the fence about is whether it
>> makes more sense to allocate it all up front or to continue to
allow
>> incremental allocation but set a hard limit on the number of
entries
>> allocated for each shared memory HTAB. Is there a performance-
>> related reason to choose one path or the other?
>
> Seems like it would be marginally better to allocate it up front --
then
> you don't have the cost of having to split buckets later as it
grows.
The attached patch should cover that.
-Kevin
