> Tom Lane wrote:
> > 
> <snip>
> > I think the default NBuffers (64) is too low to give meaningful
> > performance numbers, too.  I've been thinking that maybe we should
> > raise it to 1000 or so by default.  This would trigger startup failures
> > on platforms with small SHMMAX, but we could tell people to use -B until
> > they get around to fixing their kernel settings.  It's been a long time
> > since we fit into a 1-MB shared memory segment at the default settings
> > anyway, so maybe it's time to select somewhat-realistic defaults.
> > What we have now is neither very useful nor the lowest common
> > denominator...
> 
> How about a startup error message which gets displayed when used with
> untuned settings (i.e. the default settings), maybe unless an option
> like -q (quiet) is given?
> 
> My thought is the server should operate, but let the new/novice admin
> know they need to configure PostgreSQL properly.  Would probably be a
> good reminder for experienced admins if they forget too.
> 
> Maybe something simple like pg_ctl shell script message, or something
> proper like a postmaster start-up check.

Yes, this seems like the way to go, probably something in the postmaster
log file.  For single-user developers, we want it to start but we want
production machines to tune it. In fact, picking a higher number for
these values may be almost as far off as our defaults.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

• Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal at 2001-10-01 13:48:19 from Justin Clift

Responses

• Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal at 2001-10-01 16:19:06 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tatsuo Ishii	Date: 2001-10-01 15:42:42
	Subject: Re: Problem on AIX with current
Previous:	From: Vince Vielhaber	Date: 2001-10-01 15:36:56
	Subject: Re: developer's faq