Tom Lane wrote:
>>Leaving aside the question of max_connections, which seems to be the
>>most controversial, is there any objection to the proposal to increase
>>the settings tried for shared_buffers (up to 4000) and max_fsm_pages (up
>>to 200000) ? If not, I'll apply a patch for those changes shortly.
>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
revised patch attached, leaving max_connections alone except as above.
I'll apply this in a day or two, barring objection.
Description: text/x-patch (4.0 KB)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-12-27 00:01:07|
|Subject: Re: Case Conversion Functions |
|Previous:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2005-12-26 21:47:57|
|Subject: Re: Fixing row comparison semantics|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-12-27 03:24:40|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2114: (patch) COPY FROM ... end of copy marker corrupt|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2005-12-26 19:46:44|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup|