Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Date: 2005-12-26 22:49:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

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.



Attachment: shbuf.diff
Description: text/x-patch (4.0 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-27 00:01:07
Subject: Re: Case Conversion Functions
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2005-12-26 21:47:57
Subject: Re: Fixing row comparison semantics

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-27 03:24:40
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2114: (patch) COPY FROM ... end of copy marker corrupt
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2005-12-26 19:46:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group