Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12773.1403037591@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit?
Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit? Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > We could do better by accounting for memory usage ourselves, inside > the memory-context system, but that'd probably impose some overhead we > don't have today. Hm. We could minimize the overhead if we just accounted for entire malloc chunks and not individual palloc allocations. That would make the overhead not zero, but yet probably small enough to ignore. On the other hand, this approach would entirely fail to account for non-palloc'd allocations, which could be a significant issue in some contexts. I wonder how practical it would be to forestall Noah's scenario by preallocating all the stack space we want before enabling the rlimit. Another idea would be to do the enforcement ourselves by means of measuring the change in "sbrk(0)"'s reported value since startup, which we could check whenever, say, we're about to request a large malloc chunk in aset.c. I'm not sure about the cost of that function though, nor about whether this measurement method is meaningful in modern systems. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: