| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
| Date: | 2012-06-29 17:44:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4FEDE988.6000309@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> If we could do that on *all* platforms, I might be for it, but we only
> know how to get that number on some platforms.
I don't see what's wrong with using it where we can get it, and not
using it where we can't.
> There's also the issue
> of whether we really want to assume that the machine is dedicated to
> Postgres, which IMO is an implicit assumption of any default that scales
> itself to physical RAM.
10% isn't assuming dedicated. Assuming dedicated would be 20% or 25%.
I was thinking "10%, with a ceiling of 512MB".
> For the moment I think we should just allow initdb to scale up a little
> bit more than where it is now, perhaps 128MB instead of 32.
I wouldn't be opposed to that.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-29 17:48:53 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-29 17:28:47 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |