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

From Justin Clift
Subject Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date
Msg-id 3BB87423.99DAC24D@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
<snip>
> I think the default NBuffers (64) is too low to give meaningful
> performance numbers, too.  I've been thinking that maybe we should
> raise it to 1000 or so by default.  This would trigger startup failures
> on platforms with small SHMMAX, but we could tell people to use -B until
> they get around to fixing their kernel settings.  It's been a long time
> since we fit into a 1-MB shared memory segment at the default settings
> anyway, so maybe it's time to select somewhat-realistic defaults.
> What we have now is neither very useful nor the lowest common
> denominator...

How about a startup error message which gets displayed when used with
untuned settings (i.e. the default settings), maybe unless an option
like -q (quiet) is given?

My thought is the server should operate, but let the new/novice admin
know they need to configure PostgreSQL properly.  Would probably be a
good reminder for experienced admins if they forget too.

Maybe something simple like pg_ctl shell script message, or something
proper like a postmaster start-up check.

This wouldn't break anything would it?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> 
>                         regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."    - Indira Gandhi


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lee Kindness
Date:
Subject: Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates?
Next
From: Lee Kindness
Date:
Subject: Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates?