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

Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date: 2001-10-01 18:55:25
Message-ID: 25695.1001962525@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> From postmaster startup, by default, could we try larger amounts of
> buffer memory until it fails then back off and allocate that?  Seems
> like a nice default to me.

Chewing all available memory is the very opposite of a nice default,
I'd think.

The real problem here is that some platforms will let us have huge shmem
segments, and some will only let us have tiny ones, and neither of those
is a reasonable default behavior.  Allowing the platform to determine
our sizing is the wrong way round IMHO; the dbadmin should have a clear
idea of what he's getting, and silent adjustment of the B/N parameters
will not give him that.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-10-01 18:55:43
Subject: Re: CVS changes
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-10-01 18:54:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CVS changes

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