Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Brett W(dot) McCoy" <bmccoy(at)lan2wan(dot)com>
Cc: Brian <signal(at)shreve(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??
Date: 1999-05-13 16:17:29
Message-ID: 199905131617.MAA19780@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Brian wrote:
>
> > Would something like this be appropriate?
> >
> > /usr/bin/postmaster -B 256 -i -S -D/var/lib/pgsql -o -F -B 256 -S 1024
> >
> > or should -B just be in their once? in the postmaster setting?
>
> Just once. If you pass it back to a backend from the postmaster, the
> postmaster handles the allocation as shared memory buffers. Here's what
> the man page for postgres says:
>
> -B n_buffers
> If the backend is running under the postmaster,
> n_buffers is the number of shared-memory buffers
> that the postmaster has allocated for the backend
> server processes that it starts. If the backend is
> running standalone, this specifies the number of
> buffers to allocate. This value defaults to 64,
> and each buffer is 8k bytes.

Because the buffers are shared by all postmaster backends, it is a
postmaster option. If you are running standalone, you will have the
postgres backend allocate its own buffers.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karl DeBisschop 1999-05-13 16:58:34 Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??
Previous Message Brian 1999-05-13 15:56:12 Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??