| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
| Date: | 2012-06-29 17:48:53 |
| Message-ID: | 27157.1340992133@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> If we could do that on *all* platforms, I might be for it, but we only
>> know how to get that number on some platforms.
> I don't see what's wrong with using it where we can get it, and not
> using it where we can't.
Because then we still need to define, and document, a sensible behavior
on the machines where we can't get it. And document that we do it two
different ways, and document which machines we do it which way on.
>> There's also the issue
>> of whether we really want to assume that the machine is dedicated to
>> Postgres, which IMO is an implicit assumption of any default that scales
>> itself to physical RAM.
> 10% isn't assuming dedicated.
Really?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-06-29 17:58:00 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-06-29 17:44:40 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |