| From: | Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The shared buffers challenge |
| Date: | 2011-05-27 19:24:38 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=OU+3hR6LTXuRdrkvOy6CEW22SNw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>> After failing to get even basic good recommendations for
>> checkpoint_segments into the docs, I completely gave up on focusing there as
>> my primary way to spread this sort of information.
>
> Hmm. That's rather unfortunate. +1 for revisiting that topic, if you
> have the energy for it.
Another +1. While I understand that this is not simple, many users
will not look outside of standard docs, especially when first
evaluating PostgreSQL. Merlin is right that the current wording does
not really mention a down side to cranking shared_buffers on a system
with plenty of RAM.
---
Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso
1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 242-3500 Main
www.truviso.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-05-27 22:12:10 | Re: The shared buffers challenge |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-27 19:04:21 | Re: The shared buffers challenge |