pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedcan we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP
4+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP
@ 2010-02-21 02:53 terry <94487509@qq.com>
2010-02-21 03:25 ` Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: terry @ 2010-02-21 02:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
hi,
STACK_DEPTH_SLOP stands for Required daylight between max_stack_depth and the kernel limit, in bytes.
Why we need so much memory? MySql need only no more than 100K. Where these memory allocated for?
Can we do something to decrease this variable? Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP
2010-02-21 02:53 can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP terry <94487509@qq.com>
@ 2010-02-21 03:25 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2010-02-21 03:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: terry <94487509@qq.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
"=?ISO-8859-1?B?dGVycnk=?=" <94487509@qq.com> writes:
> STACK_DEPTH_SLOP stands for Required daylight between max_stack_depth and the kernel limit, in bytes.
> Why we need so much memory? MySql need only no more than 100K. Where these memory allocated for?
That's not memory, that's just address space. Cutting it will not
really buy you anything; it'll just increase your risk of stack-overflow
crashes.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP
@ 2010-02-21 03:05 terry <94487509@qq.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: terry @ 2010-02-21 03:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
hi,
STACK_DEPTH_SLOP stands for Required daylight between max_stack_depth and the kernel limit, in bytes.
Why we need so much memory? MySql need only no more than 100K. Where these memory allocated for?
Can we do something to decrease this variable? Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP
@ 2010-02-21 05:44 terry <94487509@qq.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: terry @ 2010-02-21 05:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Thanks for your help!
But why we set STACK_DEPTH_SLOP to 512K, not 128K?
What it according to?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-21 05:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-21 02:53 can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP terry <94487509@qq.com>
2010-02-21 03:25 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2010-02-21 03:05 can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP terry <94487509@qq.com>
2010-02-21 05:44 Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP terry <94487509@qq.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox