From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Sergey E(dot) Koposov" <math(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.1beta, SunOS and shmget |
Date: | 2005-08-29 16:54:30 |
Message-ID: | 20050829165430.GC11943@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:30:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Sergey E. Koposov" <math(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru> writes:
> > Yes, the decreasing of max_prepared_transaction helped (after some
> > testing, I've found that the max_prepared_transactions=3
> > max_connections=10 shared_buffers=20 was well enough to fit 1mb of
> > shared memory)
>
> 20 buffers ... ugh. Obviously we are on the hairy edge of no longer
> functioning at all in 1MB shared memory. I'm not sure there is a whole
> lot we can do about this, but it's a tad irritating that clog, subtrans,
> and multixact are eating the equivalent of about 16 buffers
> (nonconfigurable) while the main buffer pool is so badly starved.
> It'd be better to reduce their allocations.
8 buffers each, I think, no? That's 32 buffers total. Maybe we could
make them allocate them automatically based on shared_buffers, with a
ceiling of 8?
For example Min(8, ceil(2*log(shared_buffers))) seems to behave nicely.
That'd mean 3*4 = 12 buffers when shared_buffers is below 100; and 8*4 =
32 buffers when shared_buffers is above 10000.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"La Primavera ha venido. Nadie sabe como ha sido" (A. Machado)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2005-08-29 17:05:49 | Re: 8.1beta, SunOS and shmget |
Previous Message | Sergey E. Koposov | 2005-08-29 16:20:11 | Re: 8.1beta, SunOS and shmget |