Shared Memory Sizing

Just going back through old mail, I notice this. So I'm not the only one
with this opinion. I've seen, at least twice in the last week or so,
people make the mistake of devoting about half their memory to postgres
shared memory buffers (the wost thing you can do!). Would someone care
to go around and find all the spots that talk about this and update them
to have more reasonable advice?

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

On Fri, 31 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> writes:
> > What is the advantage, if any, to having postgres do the buffering
> > in its shared memory rather than letting the OS do it?
>
> Not much, if any. I don't believe in making shared_buffers be more than
> (at most) 25% of physical RAM. In most cases it's just as effective to
> keep it smaller. I would recommend bumping up the default though ;-).
> Something in the low thousands (of buffers) is probably a realistic
> minimum.
>
> regards, tom lane
>