Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, "Andres Freund" <andres@anarazel.de>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, "Mark Dilger" <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, Don Seiler <don@seiler.us>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-09-13T20:24:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> writes:
> Yeah, I agree.  What about
> huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size or
> huge_pages_needed_for_main_shared_memory?

Seems like "huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory" would be sufficient.

			regards, tom lane



Commits

  1. Silence extra logging when using "postgres -C" on runtime-computed GUCs

  2. doc: Improve postgres command for shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages

  3. Introduce GUC shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages

  4. Support "postgres -C" with runtime-computed GUCs

  5. Make shared_memory_size a preset option

  6. Introduce GUC shared_memory_size

  7. Move the shared memory size calculation to its own function

  8. Add new GUC, max_worker_processes, limiting number of bgworkers.