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

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-29 17:48:53
Message-ID: 27157.1340992133@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> If we could do that on *all* platforms, I might be for it, but we only
>> know how to get that number on some platforms. 

> I don't see what's wrong with using it where we can get it, and not
> using it where we can't.

Because then we still need to define, and document, a sensible behavior
on the machines where we can't get it.  And document that we do it two
different ways, and document which machines we do it which way on.

>> There's also the issue
>> of whether we really want to assume that the machine is dedicated to
>> Postgres, which IMO is an implicit assumption of any default that scales
>> itself to physical RAM.

> 10% isn't assuming dedicated.

Really?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-06-29 17:58:00
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-06-29 17:44:40
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

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