On Sun, 2022-11-27 at 09:40 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > BTW, these should have some kind of prefix, like PG_ALLOC_* to
> > avoid causing the same kind of problem for someone else that
> > another header caused for you by defining something somewhere
> > called IGNORE (ignore what, I don't know). The other problem was
> > probably due to a define, though. Maybe instead of an enum, the
> > function should take a boolean.
> >
Patch updated to current master and includes above prefix
recommendation and combining of two function calls to one recommended
by Ted Yu.
> >
> > I still wonder whether there needs to be a separate CF entry for
> > the 0001 patch. One issue is that there's two different lists of
> > people involved in the threads.
> >
I'm OK with containing the conversation to one thread if everyone else
is. If there's no argument against, then patches after today will go
to the "Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be
allocated to backends" thread
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bd57d9a4c219cc1392665fd5fba61dde8027b3da.camel@crunchydata.com
--
Reid Thompson
Senior Software Engineer
Crunchy Data, Inc.
reid.thompson@crunchydata.com
www.crunchydata.com