| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |
| Date: | 2021-09-13 20:20:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY7Jh-qK8_w4jP2Ji26npxAMRUf5GmCXqTrfeS4N+aJGg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, I agree. What about
> huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size or
> huge_pages_needed_for_main_shared_memory? I'm still not stoked about
> using "required" or "needed" in the name, as it sounds like huge pages
> must be allocated for the server to run, which is only true if
> huge_pages=on. I haven't thought of a better word to use, though.
I prefer the first of those to the second. I don't find it
particularly better or worse than my previous suggestion of
shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-09-13 20:24:14 | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-09-13 19:43:55 | Re: PgBackRest PITR restore |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-09-13 20:24:14 | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-09-13 20:13:00 | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful |