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

Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers
Date: 2013-01-09 18:58:21
Message-ID: 50EDBDCD.1040006@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Claudio,

> Not really. I'm convinced, and not only for e_c_s, that
> autoconfiguration is within the realm of possibility.

Hey, if you can do it, my hat's off to you.

> In any case, as eavesdroppers can infer a cryptographic key by timing
> operations or measuring power consumption, I'm pretty sure postgres
> can infer cost metrics and/or time sharing with clever
> instrumentation. The trick lies in making such instrumentation
> uninstrusive.

... and not requiring a great deal of code maintenance for each and
every release of Linux and Windows.

Anyway, we could do something for 9.3 if we just make "available RAM" a
manual setting.  Asking the user "how much RAM is available for
Postgres" is not a terribly difficult question.

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


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2013-01-09 19:07:58
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Provide a common malloc wrappers and palloc et al. emulation for frontend'ish environs
Previous:From: Claudio FreireDate: 2013-01-09 18:47:46
Subject: Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers

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