Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits

Tom Lane wrote:

>>Leaving aside the question of max_connections, which seems to be the
>>most controversial, is there any objection to the proposal to increase
>>the settings tried for shared_buffers (up to 4000) and max_fsm_pages (up
>>to 200000) ? If not, I'll apply a patch for those changes shortly.
>>
>>
>
>You probably need to fix the max-connections pass so that it applies the
>same changes to max_fsm_pages as the second pass does --- otherwise, its
>assumption that shared_buffers can really be set that way will be wrong.
>Other than that I didn't see any problem with the shared_buffers part of
>the patch.
>
>
>
>

revised patch attached, leaving max_connections alone except as above.

I'll apply this in a day or two, barring objection.

cheers

andrew