Stef wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0400
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> => What exactly is failing? And what's the platform, anyway?
>
> Nothing is really failing atm, except the funds for better
> hardware. JBOSS and some other servers need to be
> run on these machines, along with linux, which will be
> a minimal RH >= 7.2 with kernel 2.4.21
> (Any better suggestions here?)
>
> In this case, whatever is the least amount of memory
> postgres can run on, is what is needed. So this is still
> a kind of feasibility study. Of course, it will still be thoroughly
> tested, if it turns out to be possible. (Which I know it is, but not how)
If you mean to say that postgresql should use just 8 MB of RAM rather than
running it on a 8MB machine, then that is impossible given how much postgresql
relies upon OS cache.
You may configure postgresql with 8MB shared memory or the old holy default of
512K, but if your database is 100MB and OS is caching half of it on behalf of
postgresql, your goal is already missed..
Shridhar
