At 05:56 PM 22-06-2001 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Since 64 is already too much to let 7.1 fit in SHMMAX = 1MB, I think
>> the original rationale for using 64 is looking pretty broken anyway.
>BSD/OS has a 4MB max but we document how to increase it by recompiling
>the kernel. Maybe if we fail the startup we can tell them how to
>decrease the buffers in postgresql.conf file. Seems quite clear.
Why is SHMMAX so low on some O/Ses? What are the advantages?
My guess is it's a minimum vs median/popular situation. Get the same thing
looking at the default www.kernel.org linux kernel settings vs the Redhat
I'd personally prefer the popular situation. But would that mean the
minimum case can't even boot up to recompile? Maybe the BSD guys should
ship with two kernels then. FreeBSD esp, since it's easy to recompile the
kernel, just do two, during installation default to "Regular", with an
option for "Tiny".
It's more fair that the people trying the extraordinary (16MB 386) should
be the ones doing the extra work.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alex Pilosov||Date: 2001-06-22 04:33:19|
|Subject: SPI_prepare for semi-unknown types|
|Previous:||From: AV||Date: 2001-06-22 03:52:50|
|Subject: Re: JDBC Connection State Management with SQL Exceptions (esp Postgresql)|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: will trillich||Date: 2001-06-22 04:15:31|
|Subject: where's the reference to a view, here?|
|Previous:||From: Paul Mamin||Date: 2001-06-22 04:10:26|
|Subject: Re: Postgres is too slow?|