Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date
Msg-id 25695.1001962525@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> From postmaster startup, by default, could we try larger amounts of
> buffer memory until it fails then back off and allocate that?  Seems
> like a nice default to me.

Chewing all available memory is the very opposite of a nice default,
I'd think.

The real problem here is that some platforms will let us have huge shmem
segments, and some will only let us have tiny ones, and neither of those
is a reasonable default behavior.  Allowing the platform to determine
our sizing is the wrong way round IMHO; the dbadmin should have a clear
idea of what he's getting, and silent adjustment of the B/N parameters
will not give him that.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Preparation for Beta
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: CVS changes