Re: Doc tweak for huge_pages?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 07:10:33PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:54:26PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Munro
> >> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > I don't know enough about this to make such a strong recommendation
> >> > myself, which is why I was only trying to report that bad performance
> >> > had been observed on some version, not that you shouldn't do it. Any
> >> > other views on this stronger statement?
> >>
> >> Now that the Windows huge pages patch has landed, here is a rebase. I
> >> took your alternative and tweaked it a tiny bit more. Thoughts?
>
> Sorry, right, that was 100% wrong. It would probably be correct to
> remove the "not", but let's just remove that bit. New version
> attached.

+ <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>. On Linux, this is called
+ "transparent huge pages", but since that feature is known to cause
+ performance degradation with
+ <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> on current Linux versions
+ (unlike explicit use of <varname>huge_pages</varname>), its use is
+ discouraged.

Consider this shorter, less-severe sounding alternative:
"... (but note that this feature can degrade performance of some
<productname>PostgreSQL</productname> workloads)."

Justin