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