Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options
Date
Msg-id 200802171853.51916.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think at the time we set the current minimum -B we were still
> intending that you could run in a half meg or so SHMMAX allocation.
> That's certainly history.  Maybe we should target 2 meg as the rock
> bottom minimum?

That makes sense to me.  It corresponds to 128 connections under the old
arithmetic, which seems reasonable all around.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options