| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
| Date: | 2005-12-24 16:57:21 |
| Message-ID: | 43AD7DF1.8090600@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>BTW, I fat-fingered the calculations I was doing last night --- the
>actual shmem consumption in CVS tip seems to be more like 17K per
>max_connection increment, assuming max_locks_per_connection = 64.
>
>
>
ITYM max_locks_per_transaction (which as the docs say is confusingly named).
So if we went to 256, say, as an upper limit on max_connections, that
would account for an extra 2.6Mb of memory use - a pretty modest
increase, really.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-12-24 17:18:45 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-24 15:48:24 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-12-24 17:18:45 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-24 15:48:24 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |