From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Shared memory usage calculations |
Date: | 2009-10-10 13:57:33 |
Message-ID: | 20735.1255183053@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I've had a look at the documentation for how much shared memory (in bytes)
> Postgres uses:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/kernel-resources.html#SHARED-MEMORY-PARAMETERS
> However, after using these calculations to work out the shared memory usage
> for my own setup, the numbers I came up with are clearly wrong.
Clearly wrong compared to what --- ie, what's the actual size of your
shared memory segment? (See ipcs)
> If I convert the sizes to kilobytes instead of bytes, it shows a total value
> of 47 megabytes, which, while not extreme, looks too low. And I am
> surprised that max_connections has relatively little bearing on the shared
> memory requirements. Is this right, or should is it more a case of it
> affecting semaphores? I was under the impression that the maximum number of
> connections played a large role in deciding shared memory limits.
No, it doesn't really ... shared_buffers is the first-order component.
Also, I'm not sure whether you realize that the native unit for these
numbers is mostly *not* bytes.
> shared_buffers = 196000000 (196MB)
> wal_buffers = 8000000 (8MB)
Neither of those parenthetical remarks are correct if that's exactly
what you wrote in postgresql.conf. It might be worth checking the
way these values are displayed in pg_settings.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2009-10-10 14:29:31 | Re: Shared memory usage calculations |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2009-10-10 12:52:04 | Shared memory usage calculations |