Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200110011849.f91InjE14963@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> This is still missing a bet since it fails to mention the option of > adjusting -B and -N instead of changing kernel parameters, but that's > easily fixed. I propose that we reword this message and the semget > one to mention first the option of changing -B/-N and second the option > of changing kernel parameters. Then we could consider raising the > default -B setting to something more realistic. Yes, we could do that but it makes things harder for newbies and really isn't the right numbers for production use anyway. I think anyone using default values should see a message asking them to tune it. Can we throw a message during initdb? Of course, we don't have a running backend at that point so you would always throw a message. From postmaster startup, by default, could we try larger amounts of buffer memory until it fails then back off and allocate that? Seems like a nice default to me. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: