Re: shared_buffers documentation

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers documentation
Date: 2010-04-19 22:06:45
Message-ID: 201004192206.o3JM6jh10642@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I don't actually know what's best. ?I'm just concerned that we have a
> >> default in postgresql.conf and a tuning guide that says "don't do
> >> that". ?Maybe the tuning guide needs to be more nuanced, or maybe
> >> postgresql.conf needs to be changed, but it makes no sense to have
> >> them saying contradictory things.
> >
> > The good news about checkpoint_segments is that you get a log file
> > warning message if the value should be increased, i.e. you are
> > checkpointing often than 30 seconds.
>
> Yeah. I get that warning frequently when I'm creating test tables of
> dummy data for PG devel purposes. That's actually the main thing that
> makes me think the default may be too low.

Well, the point is that you are getting it for _unusual_ circumstances.
Seems it is only when you are getting it for typical workloads that it
should be increased. However, this is the first time I am hearing that
battery-backed cache favors the default value.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-04-19 22:15:38 Re: shared_buffers documentation
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2010-04-19 22:03:06 Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection