Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com>

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
To: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Don Seiler <don@seiler.us>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-08-09T22:57:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On 6/9/21, 8:09 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/21, 3:51 PM, "Mark Dilger" <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 2021, at 1:52 PM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to clean it up and submit it for
>>> discussion in pgsql-hackers@ if there is interest.
>>
>> Yes, I'd like to see it.  Thanks for offering.
>
> Here's the general idea.  It still needs a bit of polishing, but I'm
> hoping this is enough to spark some discussion on the approach.

Here's a rebased version of the patch.

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.