Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
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: 2003-07-31 10:38:23
Message-ID: 5fqhivovt411oqkn828tu24u0lqhcrvs6l@4ax.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:29:37 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>The attached patch shows how initdb can dynamically determine reasonable
>shared_buffers and max_connections settings that will work on the
>current machine.

Can't this be done on postmaster startup? I think of two GUC
variables where there is only one today: min_shared_buffers and
max_shared_buffers. If allocation for the max_ values fails, the
numbers are decreased in a loop of, say, 10 steps until allocation
succeeds, or even fails at the min_ values.

The actual values chosen are reported as a NOTICE and can be inspected
as readonly GUC variables.

This would make the lives easier for the folks trying to come up with
default .conf files, e.g.
min_shared_buffers = 64
max_shared_buffers = 2000
could cover a fairly large range of low level to mid level machines.

A paranoid dba, who doesn't want the postmaster to do unpredictable
things on startup, can always set min_xxx == max_xxx to get the
current behaviour.

Servus
Manfred

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2003-07-31 12:39:21 Re: followup on previous
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-07-31 09:02:01 Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-07-31 13:37:44 Re: [Fwd: Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option]
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2003-07-31 09:37:42 [Fwd: Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option]