Re: Lowering temp_buffers minimum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Lowering temp_buffers minimum
Date
Msg-id knr4aazlaa4nj3xnpe4tu6plwayovzxhmteatcpry2j6a6kc4v@aonkl53s2ecs
Whole thread Raw
In response to Lowering temp_buffers minimum  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2025-02-25 09:33:36 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> I am working on writing some tests for temporary tables. One of the tests is
> that we correctly handle running out of buffer pins. That's a bit more
> annoying than it needs to because the minimum for temp_buffers is 100.
> 
> It seems rather odd that our minimum for temp_buffers is 100 while the minimum
> for shared_buffers, which is shared across connections!, is 16.
> 
> Does anybody see a reason we shouldn't lower temp_buffers to match
> shared_buffers?

FWIW, here's a set of patches adding some testing for temp table corner cases
that aren't currently hit, even in master. They work with temp_buffers = 100,
but would require a smaller table if a lower minimum .  And indeed the test
would currently fail without the preceding commits I included, which are from

  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGK_%3D4CVmMHvsHjOVrK6t4F%3DLBpFzsrr3R%2BaJYN8kcTfWg%40mail.gmail.com

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication