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: 2005-12-27 23:57:01
Message-ID: 43B1D4CD.3060900@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

I wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
>
> revised patch attached, leaving max_connections alone except as above.
>

committed, along with minor docs change.

The open question is whether to try more connections, on some or all 
platforms.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-28 00:30:12
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-12-27 23:30:08
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Aftab AlamDate: 2005-12-28 03:22:41
Subject: sending mail from Postgres
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-12-27 23:30:08
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup

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