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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2005-12-26 19:46:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-26 19:07:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2005-12-26 19:46:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-26 19:07:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup |