Thread: Update PostgreSQL shared memory usage table for 9.0?
Can someone update the PostgreSQL shared memory usage table for 9.0? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/kernel-resources.html#SYSVIPC Right now it says "Approximate shared memory bytes required (as of 8.3)". -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Can someone update the PostgreSQL shared memory usage table for 9.0? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/kernel-resources.html#SYSVIPC > > Right now it says "Approximate shared memory bytes required (as of > 8.3)". This documentation still says as of 8.3. If they are unchanged, can I just remove the version mention? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Can someone update the PostgreSQL shared memory usage table for 9.0? >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/kernel-resources.html#SYSVIPC >> >> Right now it says "Approximate shared memory bytes required (as of >> 8.3)". > This documentation still says as of 8.3. If they are unchanged, can I > just remove the version mention? Mentioning the version was intentional, so that people could gauge how obsolete the information might be. I certainly think it'd be inappropriate to remove that caution flag right now, when the SSI patch has likely blown those numbers all to heck. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Can someone update the PostgreSQL shared memory usage table for 9.0? > >> > >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/kernel-resources.html#SYSVIPC > >> > >> Right now it says "Approximate shared memory bytes required (as of > >> 8.3)". > > > This documentation still says as of 8.3. If they are unchanged, can I > > just remove the version mention? > > Mentioning the version was intentional, so that people could gauge how > obsolete the information might be. I certainly think it'd be > inappropriate to remove that caution flag right now, when the SSI patch > has likely blown those numbers all to heck. OK, thanks. I was hoping that either the numbers are stable, or we are always going to update them for every major release, but alas, seems what we do now is the best option. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +