> On 29 Jun 2023, at 00:31, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2023-06-28 07:26:03 +0200, Ronan Dunklau wrote:
>> I see it as a way to have *some* sort of control over the malloc
>> implementation we use, instead of tuning our allocations pattern on top of it
>> while treating it entirely as a black box. As for the tuning, I proposed
>> earlier to replace this parameter expressed in terms of size as a "profile"
>> (greedy / conservative) to make it easier to pick a sensible value.
>
> I don't think that makes it very usable - we'll still have idle connections
> use up a lot more memory than now in some cases, and not in others, even
> though it doesn't help. And it will be very heavily dependent on the OS and
> glibc version.
Based on the comments in this thread and that no update has been posted
addressing the objections I will mark this returned with feedback. Please feel
free to resubmit to a future CF.
--
Daniel Gustafsson