Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
Date
Msg-id YUFi8ekig9VRVCb8@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
Responses Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 06:00:44PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I think I see more support for shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages than
> for huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory at the moment.  I'll update
> the patch set in the next day or two to use
> shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages unless something changes in the
> meantime.

I have been looking at the patch to add the new GUC flag and the new
sequence for postgres -C, and we could have some TAP tests.  There
were two places that made sense to me: pg_checksums/t/002_actions.pl
and recovery/t/017_shm.pl.  I have chosen the former as it has
coverage across more platforms, and used data_checksums for this
purpose, with an extra positive test to check for the case where a GUC
can be queried while the server is running.

There are four parameters that are updated here:
- shared_memory_size
- wal_segment_size
- data_checksums
- data_directory_mode
That looks sensible, after looking at the full set of GUCs.

Attached is a refreshed patch (commit message is the same as v9 for
now), with some minor tweaks and the tests.

Thoughts?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: prevent immature WAL streaming
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: PG Docs for ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH PUBLICATION - copy_data option