Horton

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: 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: 2021-09-10T02:26:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 9/9/21, 7:03 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> As far as the behavior is documented, I'd be fine with the approach to
> keep the code in its simplest shape.  I agree that the message is
> confusing, still it is not wrong either as we try to query a run-time
> parameter, but we need the lock.

That seems alright to me.

Nathan

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.