Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:

> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
> Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have
> > writeback
> > optimization (done in 9.6) for Windows. However, still the broader
> > question stands that whether above data is sufficient to say that
> > we
> > can recommend the settings of shared_buffers on Windows similar
> > to
> > Linux?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says large
> > shared buffers on Windows aren't as effective perhaps, and just remove
> the
> > sentence that explicitly says don't go over 512MB?
>
> Just removing the reference to the size would make users ask a question
> "What size is the effective upper limit?"
>

True, but that's a question for other platforms as well, isn't it? We can
certainly find a different phrasing for it, but ISTM that we know that it
might be a problem, but we just don't know where the limit is? Maybe
something that suggests to people that they need to test their way to the
answer?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/