| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to up bgwriter_lru_maxpages? |
| Date: | 2017-02-01 18:27:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZn-X-H-sQ6SeyAMAhr0+AHNJGQHPX9vZWXjBg3YHysfw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/29/16 9:58 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Considering a single SSD can do 70% of that limit, I would say
>> yes.
>>
>> Next question becomes... should there even be an upper limit?
>>
>>
>> Where the contortions needed to prevent calculation overflow become
>> annoying?
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of nannyism in general, but the limits on this
>> parameter seem particularly pointless. You can't write out more buffers
>> than exist in the dirty state, nor more than implied
>> by bgwriter_lru_multiplier. So what is really the worse that can happen
>> if you make it too high?
>
>
> Attached is a patch that ups the limit to INT_MAX / 2, which is the same as
> shared_buffers.
This looks fine to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-01 18:32:53 | Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-02-01 18:12:11 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |