Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Date: 2003-02-12 05:27:31
Message-ID: 932.1045027651@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
>> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
>> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). That would allow us
>> 350 or so shared_buffers, which is better, but still not really a
>> serious choice for production work.

> What is a serious choice for production work?

Well, as I commented later in that mail, I feel that 1000 buffers is
a reasonable choice --- but I have to admit that I have no hard data
to back up that feeling. Perhaps we should take this to the
pgsql-perform list and argue about reasonable choices.

A separate line of investigation is "what is the lowest common
denominator nowadays?" I think we've established that SHMMAX=1M
is obsolete, but what replaces it as the next LCD? 4M seems to be
correct for some BSD flavors, and I can confirm that that's the
current default for Mac OS X --- any other comments?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-02-12 05:32:41 Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2003-02-12 05:19:30 Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-02-12 05:32:41 Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2003-02-12 05:19:30 Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-02-12 05:32:41 Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-12 04:24:26 Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: