| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |
| Date: | 2024-02-01 10:42:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vxiY6yfgtn65+GNThCHEVk=TPr7=F2KS27VNZ77dLz5g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:44 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2024-Feb-01, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:19 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > >
> > > postgres -c lc_messages=C -c shared_buffers=$((512*17))
> > >
> > > 2024-02-01 10:48:13.548 CET [1535379] FATAL: invalid value for parameter "transaction_buffers": 17
> > > 2024-02-01 10:48:13.548 CET [1535379] DETAIL: "transaction_buffers" must be a multiple of 16
> >
> > Maybe we should resize it to the next multiple of the SLRU_BANK_SIZE
> > instead of giving an error?
>
> Since this is the auto-tuning feature, I think it should use the
> previous multiple rather than the next, but yeah, something like that.
Okay.
>
> While I have your attention -- if you could give a look to the 0001
> patch I posted, I would appreciate it.
>
I will look into it. Thanks.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-02-01 10:42:43 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-02-01 10:14:00 | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |