Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: amul sul [mailto:sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com]
> 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

The third paragraph may be redundant, I'm a bit inclined to leave it for kindness and completeness. The attached revised patch just correct the existing typo (large -> larger).

I'll change the status to needs review.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa