From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
Date: | 2005-12-27 23:57:01 |
Message-ID: | 43B1D4CD.3060900@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
>>
>> You probably need to fix the max-connections pass so that it applies the
>> same changes to max_fsm_pages as the second pass does --- otherwise, its
>> assumption that shared_buffers can really be set that way will be wrong.
>> Other than that I didn't see any problem with the shared_buffers part of
>> the patch.
>
>
> revised patch attached, leaving max_connections alone except as above.
>
committed, along with minor docs change.
The open question is whether to try more connections, on some or all
platforms.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-28 00:30:12 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-12-27 23:30:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aftab Alam | 2005-12-28 03:22:41 | sending mail from Postgres |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-12-27 23:30:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup |