| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection |
| Date: | 2003-07-06 19:45:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20030706194507.GB14993@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 15:29:37 -0400,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> 3. What should be the set of tested values? I have it as
> buffers: first to work of 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 50
> connections: first to work of 100 50 40 30 20 10
> but we could certainly argue for different rules.
Should the default max number of connections first try something greater
than what Apache sets by default (256 for prefork, 400 for worker)?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-06 19:57:45 | Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection |
| Previous Message | Carlos Guzman Alvarez | 2003-07-06 18:33:22 | Re: Receiving data in binary format how is it encoded? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-06 19:57:45 | Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-06 15:25:28 | Re: Another POC initdb patch |