Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andreas Kling <andreas(dot)kling(at)acgnystrom(dot)se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options
Date: 2008-02-17 17:53:50
Message-ID: 200802171853.51916.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think at the time we set the current minimum -B we were still
> intending that you could run in a half meg or so SHMMAX allocation.
> That's certainly history.  Maybe we should target 2 meg as the rock
> bottom minimum?

That makes sense to me.  It corresponds to 128 connections under the old 
arithmetic, which seems reasonable all around.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-02-17 23:21:14
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-02-16 22:23:44
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group