Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions
Date: 2013-10-10 18:35:46
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZBSt-8cDAQpT5tV6d9jfEW=VTOomvX+iHFLE2UFpwx8w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> Other votes? Other ideas?
>
> 5) test and set it in initdb.

Are you advocating for that option, or just calling out that it's
possible? I'd say that's closely related to option #3, except at
initdb time rather than run-time - and it might be preferable to #3
for some of the same reasons discussed on the thread about tuning
work_mem, namely, that having it change from one postmaster lifetime
to the next might lead to user astonishment.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2013-10-10 18:36:47 Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-10-10 18:24:10 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem