Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Kirkwood <
mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:

> On 22/04/14 09:25, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> On 2014-04-21 17:21:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the community had more *BSD presence I think it would be great
>>>> but it isn't all that viable at this point. I do know however that
>>>> no-one in this community would turn down a team of FreeBSD advocates
>>>> helping us make PostgreSQL awesome for PostgreSQL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we would even implement a run-time control for Linux or
>>> Windows for this, so I don't even think it is a FreeBSD issue.
>>>
>>
>> I think some of the arguments in this thread are pretty damn absurd. We
>> have just introduced dynamic_shared_memory_type.
>>
>>
> +1
>
> I was just thinking the same thing...
>
>
I didn't realize we had a guc for dynamic shared memory, must've missed
that in the discussion about that one. I agree that if we have that, it
makes perfect sense to have the same setting available for the main shared
memory segment.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/