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:
> 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
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2009-10-10 14:29:31|
|Subject: Re: Shared memory usage calculations|
|Previous:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2009-10-10 12:52:04|
|Subject: Shared memory usage calculations|