Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB?? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Brett W. McCoy
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSI.3.91.990513144044.12249E-100000@access1.lan2wan.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??  (Brian <signal@shreve.net>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??  (Brian <signal@shreve.net>)
Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Brian wrote:

> Would something like this be appropriate?
>
> /usr/bin/postmaster -B 256 -i -S -D/var/lib/pgsql -o -F -B 256 -S 1024
>
> or should -B just be in their once? in the postmaster setting?

Just once.  If you pass it back to a backend from the postmaster, the
postmaster handles the allocation as shared memory buffers.  Here's what
the man page for postgres says:

-B n_buffers
              If the backend is  running  under  the  postmaster,
              n_buffers  is  the  number of shared-memory buffers
              that the postmaster has allocated for  the  backend
              server processes that it starts.  If the backend is
              running standalone, this specifies  the  number  of
              buffers  to  allocate.   This value defaults to 64,
              and each buffer is 8k bytes.

I am assuming here, of course, that this didn't change betwen 6.3 and 6.4
(which is what I am using).

Brett W. McCoy
                                         http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A raccoon tangled with a 23,000 volt line today.  The results blacked
out 1400 homes and, of course, one raccoon."
        -- Steel City News


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jeff MacDonald
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??
Next
From: Brian
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Optimizations for busy DB??