Re: initdb profiles

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: initdb profiles
Date: 2005-09-08 02:19:12
Message-ID: 2350.1126145952@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> There is a compromise that I think we cannot make. For production
> deployment, shared buffers are typically sized at about 10% to 25% of
> available phyiscal memory. I don't think we want to have a default
> installation of PostgreSQL that takes 10% or more of memory just like
> that. It just doesn't look good.

The fundamental issue there is "box dedicated to (one instance of)
Postgres" versus "box serves multiple uses". If you don't know what
fraction of the machine resources you're supposed to take up, it's
difficult to be very smart. I think that we have to default to a
socially friendly "don't eat the whole box" position ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-09-08 02:24:48 Re: initdb profiles
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-09-08 02:15:15 Re: initdb profiles