| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Magnus Hagander' <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: | 2016-11-11 00:54:20 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F63E05E@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have
> writeback
> optimization (done in 9.6) for Windows. However, still the broader
> question stands that whether above data is sufficient to say that
> we
> can recommend the settings of shared_buffers on Windows similar
> to
> Linux?
>
>
>
>
> Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says large
> shared buffers on Windows aren't as effective perhaps, and just remove the
> sentence that explicitly says don't go over 512MB?
Just removing the reference to the size would make users ask a question "What size is the effective upper limit?"
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-11 00:56:21 | Re: Shared memory estimation for postgres |
| Previous Message | Jan de Visser | 2016-11-10 23:51:37 | Re: Do we need use more meaningful variables to replace 0 in catalog head files? |