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

Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Date: 2005-12-26 19:42:07
Message-ID: 43B0478F.5020206@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:

>I was thinking of a linear factor plus clamps to minimum and maximum
>values --- does that make it work any better?
>  
>

Can you suggest some factor/clamp values? Obviously it would be 
reasonable to set the max clamp at the max shared_buffers size we would 
test in the next step, but I'm not sure I see a need for a minimum - all 
the factors I'm thinking of (or any factor above 10) would make us 
exceed our current minumum (100) in all cases anyway.

>You probably need to fix the max-connections pass so that it applies the
>same changes to max_fsm_pages as the second pass does --- otherwise, its
>assumption that shared_buffers can really be set that way will be wrong.
>Other than that I didn't see any problem with the shared_buffers part of
>the patch.
>
>
>  
>

OK, will do.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2005-12-26 19:46:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-26 19:07:06
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2005-12-26 19:46:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-26 19:07:06
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup

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