From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have > writeback > optimization (done in 9.6) for Windows. However, still the broader > question stands that whether above data is sufficient to say that > we > can recommend the settings of shared_buffers on Windows similar > to > Linux? > > > > > Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says large > shared buffers on Windows aren't as effective perhaps, and just remove the > sentence that explicitly says don't go over 512MB?
Just removing the reference to the size would make users ask a question "What size is the effective upper limit?"
True, but that's a question for other platforms as well, isn't it? We can certainly find a different phrasing for it, but ISTM that we know that it might be a problem, but we just don't know where the limit is? Maybe something that suggests to people that they need to test their way to the answer?
