| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows |
| Date: | 2016-11-22 02:47:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobnP+H=QREk=0cafECywjWRoN=9wK_j-61X8_2MRLLh2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/17/16 12:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> No, I'm not recommending a higher value, but just removing the doubtful sentences of 512MB upper limit. The advantage is that eliminating this sentence will make a chance for users to try best setting.
>
> I think this is a good point. The information is clearly
> wrong/outdated. We have no new better information, but we should remove
> misleading outdated advice and let users find new advice. Basically,
> this just puts Windows on par with other platforms with regard to
> shared_buffers tuning, doesn't it?
>
> I'm inclined to commit the original patch if there are no objections.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-22 02:52:27 | Re: Contains and is contained by operators of inet datatypes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-22 02:46:14 | Re: Danger of automatic connection reset in psql |