Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Date: 2003-02-12T05:27:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is >> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms >> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). That would allow us >> 350 or so shared_buffers, which is better, but still not really a >> serious choice for production work. > What is a serious choice for production work? Well, as I commented later in that mail, I feel that 1000 buffers is a reasonable choice --- but I have to admit that I have no hard data to back up that feeling. Perhaps we should take this to the pgsql-perform list and argue about reasonable choices. A separate line of investigation is "what is the lowest common denominator nowadays?" I think we've established that SHMMAX=1M is obsolete, but what replaces it as the next LCD? 4M seems to be correct for some BSD flavors, and I can confirm that that's the current default for Mac OS X --- any other comments? regards, tom lane