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is obsolete, but what replaces it as the next LCD? 4M seems to be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
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 |
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 |
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: |