Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEzhTy3pvtQsJ_gyCFE8J6g=yOJgxyCn-QsCJ30V0MsssA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large
shared_buffers on Windows
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have
> writeback
> optimization (done in 9.6) for Windows. However, still the broader
> question stands that whether above data is sufficient to say that
> we
> can recommend the settings of shared_buffers on Windows similar
> to
> Linux?
>
>
>
>
> Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says large
> shared buffers on Windows aren't as effective perhaps, and just remove the
> sentence that explicitly says don't go over 512MB?
Just removing the reference to the size would make users ask a question "What size is the effective upper limit?"
True, but that's a question for other platforms as well, isn't it? We can certainly find a different phrasing for it, but ISTM that we know that it might be a problem, but we just don't know where the limit is? Maybe something that suggests to people that they need to test their way to the answer?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: