| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Date: | 2014-05-06 16:50:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20465.1399395043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 6 May 2014 15:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Lets fix e_c_s at 25% of shared_buffers and remove the parameter
>>> completely, just as we do with so many other performance parameters.
>> Apparently, you don't even understand what this parameter is for.
>> Setting it smaller than shared_buffers is insane.
> You know you can't justify that comment and so do I.
What I meant is that your comments indicate complete lack of understanding
of the parameter. It's *supposed* to be larger than shared_buffers, and
there is no "safety risk" involved in setting it too high.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-06 16:55:05 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-06 16:48:36 | Re: TABLESPACE and directory for Foreign tables? |