| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Cc: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items |
| Date: | 1999-05-31 18:03:48 |
| Message-ID: | 16318.928173828@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I have just done cvs update and saw your changes. I tried the same
> testing as I did before (64 conccurrent connections, and each
> connection excutes 100 transactions), but it failed again.
>
> (1) without -B 1024, it failed: out of free buffers: time to abort!
Right now, the postmaster will let you set any combination of -B and -N
you please. But it seems obvious that there is some minimum number of
buffers per backend below which things aren't going to work very well.
I wonder whether the postmaster startup code ought to enforce a minimum
ratio, say -B at least twice -N ? I have no idea what an appropriate
limit would be, however. Vadim, do you have any thoughts?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Volpe | 1999-05-31 18:08:44 | Re: [HACKERS] New IP address datatype |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-31 17:43:56 | Re: [HACKERS] please? |