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is obsolete, but what replaces it as the next LCD?  4M seems to be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