Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?

От: Tom Lane
Тема: Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 18962.1294412821@sss.pgh.pa.us
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Samuel Gendler)
Ответы: Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Samuel Gendler)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Josh Berkus, )
 Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Jeff Janes, )
  Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  ("Pierre C", )
  Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Josh Berkus, )
   Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Scott Carey, )
   Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Jeff Janes, )
   Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Greg Smith, )
    Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Samuel Gendler, )
     Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Samuel Gendler, )
       Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?  (Greg Smith, )

Samuel Gendler <> writes:
> Does it not seem that this insistence on shipping a default config that
> works out of the box on every system incurs a dramatic penalty when it comes
> to getting a useful postgres config for a production system?

> I'm sure this argument has probably been done to death on this list (I'm a
> relatively recent subscriber),

No kidding.  Please review the archives.

The short answer is that even though modern machines tend to have plenty
of RAM, they don't tend to have correspondingly large default settings
of SHMMAX etc.  If we crank up the default shared-memory-usage settings
to the point where PG won't start in a couple of MB, we won't accomplish
a thing in terms of "making it work out of the box"; we'll just put
another roadblock in front of newbies getting to try it at all.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Greg Smith
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers?
От: Greg Smith
Дата:
Сообщение: pgbench to the MAXINT