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

Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Date: 2005-12-26 15:11:07
Message-ID: 9484.1135609867@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane said:
>> The existing initdb code actually does try to scale them in sync to
>> some extent ---

> Yes, I know. What I meant was that we could try using one phase
> rather than two. But that's only one possible approach.

I think that's a bad idea, mainly because max_connections is constrained
by more things than just SHMMAX.  In a scenario where the number of
semaphores constrains max_connections, you'd probably end up failing to
push shared_buffers up as high as it could be.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-26 16:00:51
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-26 15:04:59
Subject: Re: Fixing row comparison semantics

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-26 17:55:05
Subject: Online backup vs Continuous backup
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-26 15:09:04
Subject: Re: Improve XLOG_NO_TRAN related comments

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