From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection |
Date: | 2003-07-05 03:00:17 |
Message-ID: | 3F063F41.5020906@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 1. Does this approach seem like a reasonable solution to our problem
> of some machines having unrealistically small kernel limits on shared
> memory?
Yes, it does to me.
> 2. If so, can I get away with applying this post-feature-freeze? I can
> argue that it's a bug fix, but perhaps some will disagree.
I'd go with calling it a bug fix, or rather pluging a known deficiency.
> 3. What should be the set of tested values? I have it as
> buffers: first to work of 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 50
> connections: first to work of 100 50 40 30 20 10
> but we could certainly argue for different rules.
These seem reasonable. We might want to output a message, even if the
highest values fly, that tuning is recommended for best performance.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-05 03:22:11 | Re: Are we backwards on the sign of timezones? |
Previous Message | MIka Santos | 2003-07-05 01:56:10 | Need help for our thesis. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-05 13:45:30 | Re: Autoconf test for incompatible version of flex |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-07-05 00:51:21 | Autoconf test for incompatible version of flex |