| From: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows |
| Date: | 2016-11-03 09:49:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAAJ_b96G4d4FQjRLKycoiV-QiXg1hUqf0F0phYYZ+U_YS18YXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Takayuki-san,
IMHO, I think we could remove third paragraph completely and
generalised starting of second paragraph, somewhat looks likes as
follow:
<para>
- If you have a dedicated database server with 1GB or more of RAM, a
- reasonable starting value for <varname>shared_buffers</varname> is 25%
- of the memory in your system. There are some workloads where even
+ A reasonable starting value for
<varname>shared_buffers</varname> is 25%
+ of the RAM in your system. There are some workloads where even
large settings for <varname>shared_buffers</varname> are effective, but
because <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> also relies on the
operating system cache, it is unlikely that an allocation of more than
I may be wrong here, would like know your and/or community's thought
on this. Thanks.
Regards,
Amul Sul
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-11-03 09:52:33 | Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2016-11-03 09:48:51 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |