Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sailesh Krishnamurthy
Subject Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during
Date
Msg-id mjqoeqqnlw6.fsf@cs.berkeley.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes:
   >> The bigger problem though with this is that it makes the   >> problem of list overflow much worse.  The hard part
about  >> shared memory management is not so much that the available   >> space is small, as that the available space
isfixed --- we   >> can't easily change it after postmaster start.  The more finely
 

Again, I can suggest the shared memory MemoryContext we use in
TelegraphCQ that is based on the OSSP libmm memory manager. We use it
to grow and shrink shared memory at will.

-- 
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Unbalanced Btree Indices ...
Next
From: Kris Jurka
Date:
Subject: execute command tag including affected rows count