Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <javascript:;>> 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 wrong/outdated.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 misleading outdated advice and let users find new advice.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.
>
>
+1. In light of the further data that's in, my earlier objection is
withdrawn :)

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