From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: initdb profiles |
Date: | 2005-09-08 01:37:13 |
Message-ID: | 2108.1126143433@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I accept the "run from init.d" argument. So then, is there a case for
> increasing the limits that initdb works with, to reflect the steep rise
> we have seen in typically available memory at the low end?
I can't see any particular harm in having initdb try somewhat-larger
values ... but how far does that really go towards fixing the issues?
Personally, the default value I currently see as far too tight is
max_fsm_pages. I'd rather see initdb trying to push that up if it's
able to establish shared_buffers and max_connections at their current
maxima.
> ... it would be nice to try to allow
> one connection per standard allowed apache client (default is 256
> non-threaded and 400 threaded, I think).
That's a mostly independent consideration, but it seems fair enough.
Can we check the exact values rather than relying on "I think"?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-09-08 01:43:17 | Re: initdb profiles |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-09-08 01:29:11 | Re: pg_config/share_dir |