Re: Estimating total amount of shared memory required by postmaster
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Estimating total amount of shared memory required by postmaster |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4DE876A7.5000501@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Estimating total amount of shared memory required by postmaster (Alexey Klyukin <alexk@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 02.06.2011 21:58, Alexey Klyukin wrote: > Hello, > > We've recently come across the task of estimating the size of shared memory > required for PostgreSQL to start. This comes from the problem of validating > postgresql.conf files > (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01831.php), i.e. > checking that the server will be able to start with new configuration options > without actually performing the restart. Currently, I see a couple of ways > to get the estimate: > > - Use the code from ipci.c to get the total size of the shared memory segment > that Postmaster would be allocating with the given configuration options > (shared_buffers, etc.). This would require getting the actual amount of > available shared memory somehow, which is platform dependent and might not > be very reliable. The other downside is that the code would need to be > updated if the original estimates in ipci.c changes. > > - Try to actually allocate the shared memory in a way postmaster does this > nowadays, if the process fails - analyze the error code to check whether the > failure is due to the shmmax or shmmall limits being too low. This would > need to be run as a separate process (not postmaster's child) to avoid > messing with the postmaster's own shared memory, which means that this would > be hard to implement as a user-callable stored function. > > I'm also looking for other ideas. Any suggestions? There's a patch floating around to use POSIX shared memory, which doesn't obey shmmax and shmmall limits: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/D9EDACF7-53F1-4355-84F8-2E74CD19D22D@themactionfaction.com That would allow us to fly under the radar and avoid the whole issue. If you could review that patch, that would be great. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: