Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZqGTUjykNjTs11HrD8tmRD7S_xRPC_8txsUkrZTSeBxw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early ("alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 1:52 PM alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Actually, you were right. Hash tables in shared memory can be expanded. > There are some limitations (the hash "directory" is fixed size, which > means the hash table get less efficient if it grows too much), but you > can definitely create more hash entries than the initial size. See for > example element_alloc(), which covers the case of a hash table being > IS_PARTITIONED -- something that only shmem hash tables can be. Note > that ShmemInitHash passes the HASH_ALLOC flag and uses ShmemAllocNoError > as allocation function, which acquires memory from the shared segment. I realize that the code supports this ... but I thought we had established a policy that only the main lock manager's shared hash tables, and not any others, are actually allowed to make use of this functionality. See commit 7c797e7194d969f974abf579cacf30ffdccdbb95. It seems like a dangerous thing to rely on in any case, since we can't predict how much extra shared memory might actually be available. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: