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: 2012-06-28T18:11:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 08:00:06 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > The heightened limit might just as well target at another application and be > setup a bit to widely. I agree that it is useful, but I think it requires its > own setting, defaulting to off. Especially as there are no experiences with > running a larger pg instance that way. [ shrug... ] I think you're inventing things to be afraid of, and ignoring a very real problem that mlock could fix. regards, tom lane