Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 6 May 2014 15:18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>>> Lets fix e_c_s at 25% of shared_buffers and remove the parameter
>>> completely, just as we do with so many other performance parameters.
>> Apparently, you don't even understand what this parameter is for.
>> Setting it smaller than shared_buffers is insane.
> You know you can't justify that comment and so do I.
What I meant is that your comments indicate complete lack of understanding
of the parameter. It's *supposed* to be larger than shared_buffers, and
there is no "safety risk" involved in setting it too high.
regards, tom lane
