Re: Lowering temp_buffers minimum

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 15:33, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> It seems rather odd that our minimum for temp_buffers is 100 while the
minimum
> for shared_buffers, which is shared across connections!, is 16.

Hmm, given that, I'd say we also increase that minimum shared_buffers to a
value >= 33 as the highest number of pages that can be addressed in one WAL
record: We allow users to write WAL records with 33 pages without pinning
the relevant buffers, but recovery doesn't do direct-to-disk options. So, I
think it's better to increase this limit.

> Does anybody see a reason we shouldn't lower temp_buffers to match
> shared_buffers?

None that I can think of. As Robert said, go for it.

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent
Neon (https://neon.tech)