On L, 2005-09-24 at 19:32 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:21:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Of course maybe a better question is why we even limit based on the
> > > number of relations...
> >
> > Shared memory is fixed-size.
>
> True, but can't the fixed memory required per-relation just be shared
> with the fixed memory used to store free pages?
>
> Though, the idea mentioned recently of just using one shared memory
> segment for everything and allocating dynamically within that probably
> makes more sense...
I guess that communicating those changes to all running backends may be
expensive.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>