Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
> It seems a reasonably safe change, but I too am concerned about making
> such changes in minor releases. For 7.3.1 in particular, since there
> have already been publicly available tarballs, I think we should avoid
> making any more changes other than documentation fixes; otherwise
> there's too much risk of confusion ("which 7.3.1 have you got?").
I don't quite understand why there's reluctance to change this,
though. What will it break?
It's probably sufficient to put something in the release notes
indicating that MAX_FSM_RELATIONS has increased and that you should
manually set it back to 100 in the config file if the change causes
With even relatively old systems having 128 megabytes or more memory
installed, I'd think that a 36k increase in shared memory usage is
small enough to make the change worth the risk.
Now, your concerns are probably more justified if you're worried about
the change causing some little-used code to suddenly start seeing a
lot of usage...
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2002-12-19 18:40:00|
|Subject: Re: What else needs to be done for 7.3.1?|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-12-19 17:58:47|
|Subject: What else needs to be done for 7.3.1?|