Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwppeWf1HnmDmdNcj1Z4bToYaiicGn7ETM3qc5SLYasdQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
On 22/04/14 09:25, Andres Freund wrote:+1On 2014-04-21 17:21:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:If the community had more *BSD presence I think it would be great
but it isn't all that viable at this point. I do know however that
no-one in this community would turn down a team of FreeBSD advocates
helping us make PostgreSQL awesome for PostgreSQL.
I don't think we would even implement a run-time control for Linux or
Windows for this, so I don't even think it is a FreeBSD issue.
I think some of the arguments in this thread are pretty damn absurd. We
have just introduced dynamic_shared_memory_type.
I was just thinking the same thing...
I didn't realize we had a guc for dynamic shared memory, must've missed that in the discussion about that one. I agree that if we have that, it makes perfect sense to have the same setting available for the main shared memory segment.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: