Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From amul sul
Subject Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows
Date
Msg-id CAAJ_b96G4d4FQjRLKycoiV-QiXg1hUqf0F0phYYZ+U_YS18YXA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows  (Brad DeJong <Brad.Dejong@infor.com>)
Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Takayuki-san,

IMHO, I think we could remove third paragraph completely and
generalised starting of second paragraph, somewhat looks likes as
follow:
       <para>
-        If you have a dedicated database server with 1GB or more of RAM, a
-        reasonable starting value for <varname>shared_buffers</varname> is 25%
-        of the memory in your system.  There are some workloads where even
+        A reasonable starting value for
<varname>shared_buffers</varname> is 25%
+       of the RAM in your system.  There are some workloads where even        large settings for
<varname>shared_buffers</varname>are effective, but        because <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> also relies on
the       operating system cache, it is unlikely that an allocation of more than
 

I may be wrong here, would like know your and/or community's thought
on this. Thanks.

Regards,
Amul Sul


The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kuntal Ghosh
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL consistency check facility
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw