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

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-29 17:44:40
Message-ID: 4FEDE988.6000309@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom,

> If we could do that on *all* platforms, I might be for it, but we only
> know how to get that number on some platforms. 

I don't see what's wrong with using it where we can get it, and not
using it where we can't.

>  There's also the issue
> of whether we really want to assume that the machine is dedicated to
> Postgres, which IMO is an implicit assumption of any default that scales
> itself to physical RAM.

10% isn't assuming dedicated.  Assuming dedicated would be 20% or 25%.

I was thinking "10%, with a ceiling of 512MB".

> For the moment I think we should just allow initdb to scale up a little
> bit more than where it is now, perhaps 128MB instead of 32.

I wouldn't be opposed to that.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-29 17:48:53
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-29 17:28:47
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

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