Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Date: 2012-06-28T18:00:06Z
Lists: 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