Re: Multiple databases and shared_buffers - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Melvin Davidson
Subject Re: Multiple databases and shared_buffers
Date
Msg-id CANu8Fix_8ssoTAR+xjm9_3LEqy4K_VeMxf2utTccdiT5eEuhnw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Multiple databases and shared_buffers  (Rakesh Kumar <dcruncher4@aim.com>)
Responses Re: Multiple databases and shared_buffers
Re: Multiple databases and shared_buffers
List pgsql-general
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Rakesh Kumar <dcruncher4@aim.com> wrote:
It is a business requirement that we store our clients data in separate databases. Our sales folks insist it is non negotiable. Our current technology does
support that and also maintain buffer pools for each db independently. That's why I brought this up. Personally I don't think this is a serious limitation at all.




-----Original Message-----
From: Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wed, Feb 17, 2016 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Multiple databases and shared_buffers

I think this begs the question "Why do you think you need to separate the shared_buffers"?
What version of PostgreSQL are you using?
What is your O/S?
How many CPU's on your server?
How much memory?

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
On 2/17/2016 6:54 AM, Data Cruncher wrote:
We will be creating multiple databases in a cluster (instance). Is there any way to separate shared_buffers for each database? Looks like not since PG does not allow user created shared buffers.



you would need to run multiple instances if you feel you need that level of control over shared_buffers.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz


>It is a business requirement that we store our clients data in separate databases. Our sales folks insist it is non negotiable. Our current technology does
>support that and also maintain buffer pools for each db independently.

NOTE: It is very important you provide the version of PostgreSQL and O/S when addressing this mail list. That is so others searching the archives in the future
can determine it's pertenance.

That being said, It looks to me like you have a misunderstanding about how PostgreSQL uses shared_buffers. Data is not actually stored in the shared_buffers.
Please refer to the following url which explains it's usage.

http://leopard.in.ua/2013/09/05/postgresql-sessting-shared-memory

--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Query plan not updated after dropped index
Next
From: Lupi Loop
Date:
Subject: Windows default directory for client certificates