| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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: | 2016-11-18 20:23:14 |
| Message-ID: | 32cba1e7-d4a2-c292-3bf8-6ff46d09b7f7@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/17/16 12:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> No, I'm not recommending a higher value, but just removing the doubtful sentences of 512MB upper limit. The advantage is that eliminating this sentence will make a chance for users to try best setting.
I think this is a good point. The information is clearly
wrong/outdated. We have no new better information, but we should remove
misleading outdated advice and let users find new advice. Basically,
this just puts Windows on par with other platforms with regard to
shared_buffers tuning, doesn't it?
I'm inclined to commit the original patch if there are no objections.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-18 20:44:55 | Re: Mail thread references in commits |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-18 20:01:41 | Re: Tuple count used while costing MergeAppend and that for an append rel |