On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 04:08 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> Shaun Thomas reports one that is (I assume) not read intensive, but
>> his diagnosis is that this is a kernel bug where a larger
>> shared_buffers for no good reason causes the kernel to kill off its
>> page cache.
>
>
> We're actually very read intensive.
Sorry, that is what I meant. I wrote "not write intensive", then
decided it would be clearer to change "not write" to "read" and then
forgot to remove the "not". I hate it when that happens.
Atomic update commit failure in the meatware :)
Cheers,
Jeff
