Robert Haas escreveu:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> writes:
>>> Tom Lane escreveu:
>>>> daveg <daveg@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>> I'd like to propose adding a new GUC to limit the amount of memory a backend
>>>>> can allocate for its own use.
>>>> Use ulimit.
>>>>
>>> What about plataforms (Windows) that don't have ulimit?
>> Get a real operating system ;-)
>>
>> Seriously, the proposed patch introduces overhead into a place that is
>> already a known hot spot, in return for not much of anything. It will
>> *not* bound backend memory use very accurately, because there is no way
>> to track raw malloc() calls. And I think that 99% of users will not
>> find it useful.
>
> What WOULD be useful is to find a way to provide a way to configure
> work_mem per backend rather than per executor node. But that's a much
> harder problem.
>
I see. Tough problem is: how do we get per backend memory usage accurately? Is
it relying on OS specific API the only way?
-- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/